11 réponses à ce sujet

[animedreamer]

Was a the local Game Store (not really local as I have to drive 8.x miles to the next state over to get there), and saw the DA Core Rule Book, glossed over some of it, and thought why don't they just make a DA game revolving around the pen and paper rules they've already devised for this book? It seem very engrossing and the system didn't seem that complicated.

[Andraste_Reborn]

The system is great and have enjoyed running games with it, but Green Ronin developed those P&P rules based on Origins, and they're more suited for a tabletop game than a video game IMHO. The stunts are my favourite part, and those wouldn't work at all in a cRPG.

[Realmzmaster]

The role playing game is based on the video games. The role playing game was written by Chris Pramas (who also did Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Freeport). Bioware did not devise the game system (The Adventure Game System). Bioware/EA allowed Chris Pramas to use the DA universe as the backdrop and content for the tabletop roleplaying game.

The P n P games is actually published by Green Ronin Publishing which released it in 2010 after the release of DA Origins. So technically Bioware/EA does not own the system used in the P n P game.  Bioware/EA does own the universe on which the P n P game's content is based.

 

Parts of the system would have to be heavily modified to get them to work in a video game.

[animedreamer]

I see, well they could definitely maybe borrow some ideas from GR's system to help spice up a CRPG. Anyway thanks for the insight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree that adapting a tabletop ruleset is the best way to go. Tabletop rulesets are typically deeper and more robust than those developed specifically for CRPGs.

[Arvaarad]

The stunting mechanic is cool from the perspective of a PnP player. It's kind of... a baby crit, in that it happens more often than rolling a 20, but has a smaller (albeit more customizable) bonus.

IMO, that's the killer feature of Green Ronin RPGs. Annnnd it's completely nontransferable to CRPGs, unless they're 100% turn-based.

Now, I love playing tabletop games, but I can't stand turn-based video games.

In tabletop games, you can truly do anything in that turn. I could look at my jump height, realize that it's taller than the enemy I'm facing, and ask the GM if I can try to knock them prone by jumping onto their head. Or I can cast magical darkness on the end of a fishing line and whip a movable darkness cloud through the enemy line. Or I could disguise myself as an orc and convince the enemy generals to kill each other via an absurd bluff modifier. Or I could realize I'm immune to poison, then poison my bare fists before I punch someone. Or I could cast an illusion of a goblin onto an enemy, ask my ranger friend to deliberately fail their save, and grant them a racial hatred bonus on that enemy.

All of those things could be possible in a video game, but someone would have to imagine all the scenarios beforehand. I can't do [insert arbitrary silly thing here] in CRPGs because planning for every silly solution is impossible. Especially solutions involving interactions with people.

Plus, during a tabletop game I'm eating pizza and chatting with my friends while it's not my turn. In a turn-based CRPG, I'm staring at some attack animations while it's not my turn. I don't mind frequently pausing the game (in fact, I'm an extreme micromanager and pause a lot). But if there's no way for me to sometimes fall back into realtime, I get impatient.

For me, CRPGs fill a different role than PnP games, and that's ok. They're good at different things. And just as I don't think PnP games should try to play to the strengths of CRPGs (cough, D&D 4e, cough), I don't think CRPGs should try to muscle in on stuff PnP games will always be miles better at.

[animedreamer]

Making a game based around tabletop rules is hardly out of the question or impossible as we need to look no further than Neverwinter Night 1 and 2, and to a extent Baldur's Gate 2. So long as the developer actually has a great if not perfect understanding of said rule set and can adapt 80% of it to a CRPG they can make a game that both PnP and CRPG enthusiast can enjoy.

[PhroXenGold]

Making a game based around tabletop rules is hardly out of the question or impossible as we need to look no further than Neverwinter Night 1 and 2, and to a extent Baldur's Gate 2. So long as the developer actually has a great if not perfect understanding of said rule set and can adapt 80% of it to a CRPG they can make a game that both PnP and CRPG enthusiast can enjoy.

 

Now, personally, I'd say those games worked despite their rule set because the other aspects of them were good. D&D rules are really clunky when ported to a CRPG, as they simply can't take advantage of the strengths of that platform - in particular real time combat and ease of number crunching. Shoehorning in systems designed to be playable with a bunch of people around a table is never going to be as good as a well designed system built from the ground up to take advantage of the strengths of a CRPG.

[Redemption2407]

@OP they don't use the PnP rule because the game would be a great game and since they are commited to make useless action sh*t to please devil may cry fans (and obviously failing into both RPG and action) they would never make a great game, it is a sin for 2015 Bioware
 

 

Now, personally, I'd say those games worked despite their rule set because the other aspects of them were good. D&D rules are really clunky when ported to a CRPG, as they simply can't take advantage of the strengths of that platform - in particular real time combat and ease of number crunching. Shoehorning in systems designed to be playable with a bunch of people around a table is never going to be as good as a well designed system built from the ground up to take advantage of the strengths of a CRPG.

Yeah, nope. I came to play all Bioware games because of people who played tabletop RPG and showed me their games saying how amazing those games were. Those people played the games BECAUSE of the ruleset. Later I lost contact with most of them but I myself kept playing until NWN2 and it is by far the most perfect game ever BECAUSE of the ruleset. There are playthroughs that I play because of specific epic feats so perfect and wondrous the rulesets are.
Same in BG, I'm now playing EE with a Blade kit and everything is perfect and needed, it is because of each skill and feat that the game is perfect. It is that -1AC or the race bonus that the game is worthy playing. I couldn't care less for the story of those games, the worst being NWN1 but all being hideous (except for the godlike perfect story of NWN2MotB the most perfect godlike and yet even more perfect RPG ever made) I played because of the rules.
RPG are nothing but the ruleset, thus my hate for Inquisition. Bioware can make the most perfect story ever made, and it can make a good book, a good movie, a good whateveryouwanttocallit, but never a RPG, RPG is a rule set.
You can tell stories without a ruleset and call it RPG, you can roleplay without a ruleset but it is lacking the G part. Game means a ruleset, it defines RPG, it is everything in the game, it is the game itself, with or without a story. If I keep on hitting a training dummy with a RPG ruleset, I'm playing RPG, now if I tell the most wonderful story ever making George R.R. Martin, Tolkien and Lewis look like dumb babies who can barely write without a ruleset it is not RPG.And this is what Bioware games became, beautiful stories, and nothing else, meaning disgusting and underserving to exist except (for those who like it) as books.
As games, you know that G in RPG, they became dumber and dumber to the point I could teach my 8 yo daughter to play Inquisition in 10 minutes or less.
The least Bioware could do is call it ASWS, Action Sh*t with story, or M3DPJWS, Mario 3D Platform Jumper with story that is what Inquisition is, it is less offensive. The options were cut to the point I can't seriously call it roleplaying, chosing between an Inquisitor that do X crying or X with a smile is not really option. Roleplaying is far from doing the same **** with slight different emotional response when there is any.
All Bioware games are excuses for Gaider and friends to tell their stories, if they were any good perhaps I wouldn't complain that much but in DAI we reached a point were we can't even be evil without reason, we can't even hurt innocent people, have brothels or make pacts with demons letting children be possessed. So without a ruleset with any depth or complexity and without choice how the hell it is still RPG?
Yeah, yeah, I know people here are happy with the story and the choices THEY want are covered by the game. Good for them. Still the games became more and more simples, with less classes, lost non combat skills, stat and skill dependant dialogue and a lot more stuff that made their games RPG.Watching The Hobbit is more interactive than a Bioware game. (BTW only took time to post sh*t here because Sword Coast Legends is downloading the full version, it is an awful unplayable game meaning it is 3 billion times more RPG and a better game than Bioware current sh*t just by the fact that you can assign stat points, but as soon as I finish it I go back to Pillars of Eternity the true RPG of this generation)

[Arvaarad]

Now, personally, I'd say those games worked despite their rule set because the other aspects of them were good. D&D rules are really clunky when ported to a CRPG, as they simply can't take advantage of the strengths of that platform - in particular real time combat and ease of number crunching. Shoehorning in systems designed to be playable with a bunch of people around a table is never going to be as good as a well designed system built from the ground up to take advantage of the strengths of a CRPG.

Yep. And let's not forget, there are loads and loads of tabletop systems out there. If someone says "CRPGs should be more like PnP games," the next question could be "which ones?"

There are quite a few systems out there that are more "actiony" than an "action" CRPG. I've played a tabletop RPG where a good 20% of hits resulted in an instant KO. I've played a tabletop RPG where combat and checks were resolved with dominos. I've played completely statless tabletop RPGs, games that blurred the line between PnP RPGs and LARPs.

Combat mechanics are so varied in tabletop RPGs that it's missing the point to fixate on them. They're important, but they're not the soul of PnP games.

I think my problem with D&D simulators is sort of like the uncanny valley. The more mechanics a video game copies from D&D, the more glaring the deficiencies become. Look no further than D&D player lore - the dread gazebo, the head of Vecna, the luchador vs. the dragon, the talking bear. Not a single one of those situations would be possible in a CRPG without a developer coding for that exact scenario. What makes tabletop games fun is that anything is possible; in fact, surprising the GM is part of the fun! Whenever I play a D&D simulator, I'm always hyper-aware of the fact that everything is not possible, and the more detailed the simulation, the more hyper-aware of that I become.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In tabletop games, you can truly do anything in that turn. I could look at my jump height, realize that it's taller than the enemy I'm facing, and ask the GM if I can try to knock them prone by jumping onto their head. Or I can cast magical darkness on the end of a fishing line and whip a movable darkness cloud through the enemy line. Or I could disguise myself as an orc and convince the enemy generals to kill each other via an absurd bluff modifier. Or I could realize I'm immune to poison, then poison my bare fists before I punch someone. Or I could cast an illusion of a goblin onto an enemy, ask my ranger friend to deliberately fail their save, and grant them a racial hatred bonus on that enemy.

All of those things could be possible in a video game, but someone would have to imagine all the scenarios beforehand. I can't do [insert arbitrary silly thing here] in CRPGs because planning for every silly solution is impossible. Especially solutions involving interactions with people.

Setting aside the interactions with people for a moment, thise sorts of things should absolutely be possible in a CRPG, and I don’t agree that they require the developers to foresee them all. Much like a tabletop game designer doesn't necessarily foresee all the things a player might try to do with a tabletop ruleset. But with a sufficiently robust ruleset, there should be innumerable emergent interactions of the rules for players to discover (and invent).

A kobold isn't a difficult enemy. But give him a hand crossbow, poisoned bolts, and a ring of improved invisibility and watch him take down mid-level parties while they camp.

The problem with CRPGs is that the offer scenarios and environments and day-to-dat activities that are too simple. Instead of scripting every event, they should give us a deep ruleset and see what we can do with it. Take the invisible walls in DAI. Those are a terrible idea. We can jump, and the world has geometry, and if we can find a way to put thosethings together creatively we should be permitted (or even encouraged to do so).

But this would require that the game contain abilities whose uses weren't immediately obvious. Like Heat Metal, and Hold Portal, or Rope Trick. It would further require that every object in the world have consistent and predictable qualities, like resistance (or vulnerability) to certain types of damage. It would also require the developers be willing to let us break our game by collapsing the wrong wall of a dungeon and irretrievably burying some vital quest item.

But to me, that's a good thing. That just means they shouldn't make any one quest mandatory.

Plus, during a tabletop game I'm eating pizza and chatting with my friends while it's not my turn. In a turn-based CRPG, I'm staring at some attack animations while it's not my turn.

I call that a strength of CRPGs. The friends and pizza in tabletop distract me from my roleplaying.

For me, CRPGs fill a different role than PnP games, and that's ok.

For me, they fill the same role, but CRPGs usually do it better by not having other players in them.

[animedreamer]

Yep. And let's not forget, there are loads and loads of tabletop systems out there. If someone says "CRPGs should be more like PnP games," the next question could be "which ones?"

 

That's a boon not a negative, what happens in every sequel to dragon age thus far? The system changes, and no its not always for the better, so again going by your question what similarity is there between it and the dragon age sequels? Change. If they picked one, then cool they used a ruleset that they thought best utilized what they wanted to do for that particular game. Like any previous game then they used a new system. Not sure why you'd even use LARP as a argument when it has a lot less in common with video games, as oppose to PnP. LARPing has a lot less to do with the spirit of the rules or RAW as opposed to acting, in fact PnP RPG's is and was the backbone that spurred the CRPG genre whereas LARP is almost an entirely different thing unto itself.

 

In fact lets just go ahead and say this, Role in RPG is largely dead. We are in fact not doing that when we play a RPG video game anymore, that is to say you are directing a set character no matter what options went into making it, you are directing said character through a predetermined story, you are a director. What I am for the purpose of this thread is this, "Why not use a more traditional PnP ruleset for the actual mechanical part of the game." Such rule sets generally come with similar guidelines found along the same direction that Game Developers already use to figure out how your avatar interacts with the world, or used to before they dumbed it down so that its more A B or C.