124 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Really? What stood out to me about 3rd edition was that it had a ton more customization options and viable builds.

 

That was kinda my issue first time playing Baldur's Gate. I was pretty surprised at how few options I got to choose at level up. 

[AlanC9]

But I also think in the context of pen and paper, there is something of a gentlemen's agreement not to simply derail the general direction of the adventure. The DM is going to try to provide compelling reasons for the adventure based on each character's personality, but (ideally) everyone will have chosen characters who are at least open to the premise of the adventure.

Note that in a lot of P&P systems, the GM doesn't have to worry about this too much. If a character gets build points for personality traits -- for instance, GURPS' Duties and Mental Disadvantages -- then the adventure can be built to suit. It doesn't even have to fit all the characters. If divergent psych traits results in the PCs having an argument over what to do next, that's just more RP.

I spent a lot of PnP time in such systems. Bioware at its railroadiest is more like what went on in those games than, say, what goes on in a TES game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That was kinda my issue first time playing Baldur's Gate. I was pretty surprised at how few options I got to choose at level up. 

2nd edition was less about character building and more about playing that character creatively within those limitations.  It also helped to know all of the future class abilities when creating a character.

 

AD&D is probably the reason why, to this day, I find fighter classes dull.

 

That said, 2nd edition did allow some character builds 3E didn't.  I still miss dual-classing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Can you tell my players about this gentlemans agreement.

The gamemaster is as much a player as the others are - his gameplay just has a different structure and scope.

 

Tabletop is a co-operative mutliplayer game.  If you want to play, you want to work together.

[Il Divo]

The gamemaster is as much a player as the others are - his gameplay just has a different structure and scope.

 

Tabletop is a co-operative mutliplayer game.  If you want to play, you want to work together.

 

Essentially this. It just comes down to recognizing how the game is designed. Character concepts to RP should be chosen with that playstyle in mind. Most people probably wouldn't recommend playing a character hell bent on murdering the party, simply because a lot of players won't perceive that as fun if their PC's keep ending up dead.

 

Similarly, improvisation can be fun all around, especially for a DM. But if you're going out of your way to design an adventure, and every single time your player-base decides to go all "open world" and do an activity on the other side of the world, I suspect the novelty of improvising new adventures on the spot runs out pretty quick. 

[Ahglock]

Really? What stood out to me about 3rd edition was that it had a ton more customization options and viable builds.

What stood out to me was the save system. It really unbalanced the spell casters with how the save or die spells.

[RoboticWater]

See, this is exactly why my old DM would do and it worked out fairly well. Gameplay in cRPG's too often devolves into loot management. I don't necessarily mind if it's in the context of reasonable weight limits. But if the weight limit is because I've picked up my fiftieth great axe and I'm not sure whether I want to sell that or the repeating crossbow lying on the ground, then I think the game might want to rethink how it's approaching the concept of loot. 

Precisely the reason I've never especially liked RPG inventories or economies for that matter. It's a self-defeating cycle of picking up garbage items for the cash, tediously managing my inventory, and selling all my stuff until I'm the richest man in the universe. Like Sylvius said: if there was a legitimate reason not to pick up loot, then low level items wouldn't matter so much; however, most RPGs these days don't seem to have the sense to do that. IIRC, Skyrim's default weight limit was around 150-200. Something tells me that even the most deep-pocketed individual couldn't just hold onto the 15 greatswords, 10 bows, and everyone's silvery within a 10 mile radius that a 200 weight limit affords. 

 

There's more than a few ways to solve this problem. One way could be to follow Dark Sous, and give people infinite inventories, not allow players sell anything, make drops rare, and make essentially every item viable for some build. That fixes both the economy and eliminates looting compulsion while being neither intrusive nor an impediment to customization. Another would be a grid-based inventory like Deus Ex (or any hyper-limited inventory in theory, but grids force players to be even more frugal with their equipment choices) and let everything be lootable. People may still feel the need to investigate the inventories of most things, but at least there's no becoming a one man gun store.

 

It seems to me that the root of the problem is that inventories seem to be a default in RPGs. Designers put them in without really accounting for how the inventory might be used or why it exists in the first place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What stood out to me was the save system. It really unbalanced the spell casters with how the save or die spells.

2nd edition has save or die spells, as well.  Or save or be completely helpless (Hold Person).  Or no save at all (Command).

 

There was no hint of class balance in 2nd edition at all, unless you take into account the vastly lower survivability at low levels.  The population at large has far fewer mages in it because very few mages ever live to see level 5.  When I played tabletop AD&D (1st & 2nd edition), magic using player characters died constantly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IIRC, Skyrim's default weight limit was around 150-200. Something tells me that even the most deep-pocketed individual couldn't just hold onto the 15 greatswords, 10 bows, and everyone's silvery within a 10 mile radius that a 200 weight limit affords.

The very first time I played, it was clear I couldn't carry everything, so I only picked up loot with a value more than 10 times its weight.  And even that because far too permissive before long.

 

I found I just hoarded potions and crafting ingredients.  I'd walk around with very little extra capacity to haul loot, because I was carrying several hundred potions all the time.

[Dalakaar]

because I was carrying several hundred potions all the time.

It's also nice to have a bottomless stomach for said potions. I don't imagine pissing for an hour straight would be much fun even if it was in game-time.

[Ahglock]

2nd edition has save or die spells, as well. Or save or be completely helpless (Hold Person). Or no save at all (Command).

There was no hint of class balance in 2nd edition at all, unless you take into account the vastly lower survivability at low levels. The population at large has far fewer mages in it because very few mages ever live to see level 5. When I played tabletop AD&D (1st & 2nd edition), magic using player characters died constantly.

The difference was monsters quickly hit the point they saved on like a 5 while in 3e it was like a 15. There were a couple no save spells but they were very high level and magic resistance could still defeat it, which a lot of difficult monsters had.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

My simple and humble opinion:

keep the great playability from ME3. Add more small actions - heavy melee was my favorite.
Pick the conversations from the original and lovely Mass Effect.
Add humor, drama and better face creating from ME2.

Here, a perfect birthday gift for the rest of my life.

[Nonoru]

Definitively. However, it shouldn't take precedence over fixing the journal. 

[wright1978]

Really for me RPG relates to the Character and story customisation elements. I didn't like ME3's move towards a fixed version of the protagainst(rammed home by forced dream sequences, vast amounts of auto-dialogue and a focus on a few large set piece choices versus lots of small characterising dialogue choices, and removal of neutral dialogue option.

 

So i definitely want them to head back to a stance where they return to allowing players dialogue choices where we can establish and maintain a sense of what our character stands for. Sometimes dialogue choices will be just about establishing even if that desire is stymied by the needs of the plot. Illusion of choice matters alongside choices that have different consequences.

 

As i've already said, on the story front there should be a greater focus on smaller story choices and less focus on a handful of galaxy shifting choices.

 

 

I don't really view loot as an RPG requisite even if it is present in many RPG's. I was happy when ME moved away from its awful loot system. If we can get decent levels of armor and weapon customisation alongside set weapon unlocks i'll be happy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The difference was monsters quickly hit the point they saved on like a 5 while in 3e it was like a 15. There were a couple no save spells but they were very high level and magic resistance could still defeat it, which a lot of difficult monsters had.

3E made it explicit how much of a challenge each enemy was supposed to be, which made the game more predictable. And some of the genuinely weird monsters disappeared (I always liked the Catoblepas - it had 2 hit dice and a death gaze). Both of these things made combat more predictable.

[Iakus]

 

At the end of the day, many of the concepts which you're pointing out are technically-speaking possible. They're just not prevalent enough in tabletop to be regarded as "the point" of the experience. Sure, you can design a more inventory-oriented pen and paper experience (I've played in one or two). But it's a pretty huge stretch to go from that to "This is supposed to be an RPG, where's all the loot?"

Loot is rather setting dependant.

 

In my current P&P game, we're playing a very low-magic world where the players are all essentially runaway slaves.  As such, we have a, shall we say "different" idea on what loot is worth hauling away.  

 

Not long ago, we had to puzzle out how to carry an anvil we had acquired.  We needed it if we were to be able to build and maintain metal weapons and tools, so we were salivating at the idea of having one.  But those things aren't exactly portable.

 

We ended up burying it and coming back days later with a cart we had "acquired" .

[Iakus]

 

I found I just hoarded potions and crafting ingredients.  I'd walk around with very little extra capacity to haul loot, because I was carrying several hundred potions all the time.

When it got to that point, I just kept stashes of extra crafting materials and potions around the numerous homes I was acquiring.  So if I ever needed more I'd just head to the nearest safe house and stock up.

[goishen]

It would be nice if we could deck our squadmates out how they wanted to look.  It would also be nice if we deck our squadmates with weapons and weapon mods we like.  It would also be nice if we had some of the non-combat related skills systems in place.  For example, I liked the fact that you could level up your armor (and get better armor) but I hated the fact that every time you played (or at least I played) I had to bring Garrus and Tali along with me until I got my skills up there.  I also hated selling stuff or even worse turning it into Omni-gel every hour.

 

So, it's kind'a a mixed bag. 

 

EDIT :  I mean, one thing that they should do is introduce armor types that the NPC's with you actually carry (skins, pretty basically) that you can swap out on the fly.  Weapons and weapon mods are pretty basically taken care of.  The leveling up of the armor skill isn't addressed, as of yet.  But the Electronics and one other (I think maybe it's Decryption?)  thing is.

[Element Zero]

I've noticed how the ME franchise has slowly more towards its action orientation at the price of role-playing.
 
Should Bioware continue like this? Should they add in things like a (better) loot system, such as picking up weapons and armour from fallen enemies, deeper customisation (especially for armour, but I think that is one thing they said they are addressing), more class specialisations, more freedom in the way the story is played?
 
What do you guys think?

I'm late to this discussion, and have no desire at present to read the entire four pages of comments precending my own. (Sorry guys. I'll get around to it. )

"RPG Elements" likely means something different to everyone. I do not want a return of the RPG clutter of Mass Effect. I love that game, but I hate its skills system and its terrible loot system. That is RPG clutter, to me. I much prefer the streamlining of ME3. Trim the fat, and let us play the good stuff.

The "RPG elements" I felt were lacking were the options to solve (or fail) situations in a variety of ways. In the ME trilogy, you basically have three options for problem resolution: shoot it, blue dialogue option, red dialogue option. I'd like to see a more believable, varied approach in the next game.

I'd like more freedom in how to execute combat missions, tactically. (Think MGS series or AC Unity and Syndicate's black box missions). I'd also like more varied and believable social interactions with NPCs, including the ability to "fail" the interaction. In real life, you can't always charm or bully people into the desired outcome. Sometimes, you say or do the wrong thing and the person's mind is made up, and will not be changed. (The Witcher series does this well.)

These are roleplaying elements to me. They allow me to get immersed, to play the role the way I want to play it. These type of gameplay changes are things I suspect a majority of people would enjoy.

Adding a bunch of skill trees, a bloated inventory, etc...? No thanks. I don't enjoy that tedious micromanagement. I tolerate it in good games, but it never adds anything positive. Bloated inventories also often make no sense. How the heck do characters pick up and carry all this junk between opportunities to stash it? Again, adds nothing positive for me. I have to both ignore the question of how I'm carrying this stuff, and then micromanage its disposition. There are far more enjoyable ways to upgrade gear.

[rashie]

This was what I meant to get at. A lot of sand-boxes try to encourage emergent narrative by trying to provide the player with a billion different things to do, where the narrative often occurs through some amalgamation of these activities. 

 

Engaging in exploration in ME1 focuses on: minerals/resources, thresher maws (on a rare occasion), or that single merc base identified on your map. That's very limited in scope even for an emergent narrative to take hold. 

Having actually fun driving mechanics can do a lot to engage the player in an otherwise fairly static environment, if the Mako had been more akin to something like borderlands 2 vehicles in mobility, weapons, and handling, it would likely have provided a far better player experience with the same overall structure.

 

Overall I'm glad they realised this and seems to be going for a more agile approach.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adding a bunch of skill trees, a bloated inventory, etc...? No thanks. I don't enjoy that tedious micromanagement. I tolerate it in good games, but it never adds anything positive.

Intricate skill trees are exactly what I would like to see.

Planning characters is as fun as playing them.

[Il Divo]

Having actually fun driving mechanics can do a lot to engage the player in an otherwise fairly static environment, if the Mako had been more akin to something like borderlands 2 vehicles in mobility, weapons, and handling, it would likely have provided a far better player experience with the same overall structure.

 

Overall I'm glad they realised this and seems to be going for a more agile approach.

 

Agreed, I think as game design goes, there could be a lot of great elements to Andromeda and exploration in particular. I think with ME1 in hind-sight, the devs have a great idea of what worked and what didn't. 

[Element Zero]

Intricate skill trees are exactly what I would like to see.
Planning characters is as fun as playing them.

It's not my thing for this type of game, but I know it works for others.

We'll see what we get. Hopefully, it will feature a good enough blend of features to make nearly all of us happy. It's Mass Effect, so they'd have to mess it up pretty badly for me to not like it at all.

[javeart]

For combat gameplay elements, ME3 is a good base. The leveling system had you make some choices, and wasn't boringly incremental like ME1's. The huge variety of guns and mods made that aspect interesting. The multiplayer in particular succeeded in using that system to add numerous fun abilities and sub-classes.

 

What they could add is non-combat skills, but I would like those to be open to every class. I don't want it to be like ME1 where you had to lug around a tech-focused class to act as a skill monkey. They could have a secondary skill tree for Not!Shepard, where you choose between, I dunno, persuasion, intimidation, hacking, lockpick, and anciliary stuff like historical knowledge or somesuch. Kind of like the Inquisition perks of DA:I, expanded a bit.

 

I'd like that too. It was one of the few of the new features of DAI that I enjoyed. I think it's great for rp

[Seraphim24]

Really? What stood out to me about 3rd edition was that it had a ton more customization options and viable builds.

 

In theory, in practice it was streamlined. Like, what's the difference between a level 8 Red Dragon Disciple/4Pale Master/3Necromancer/4Sorceror Gnome and a19 pure wizard Human with extra feats in bonus spell penetration and epic spell penetration?

 

Nothing?

 

And what's the difference between a level 10 Dwarven defender/level 5 fighter/1 arcane archer/2 shadow dancer/1 barbarian and a a level 19 human fighter with max specialization in Katanas?

 

Nothing?

 

A monk in second edition was a force to behold, because they had natural spell resistance when almost no one else had it, they also had powerful bonus damage to hand to hand fighting when magical weapons were considerably more rare and harder to acquire as a general principle. They also had a set of restrictions that accompaned their unique position, such as on multiclassing in any capacity.

 

In 3rd edition everyone became everything a bit, so all those differences collapsed.

 

It was always amusing to read on gamefaqs forums about the superiority of a druid based shapeshifting devastate weapons specializing rapier double bonus critical range archmage or whatever people came up with, it sounds all powerful and unique, but power and unique in second edition was a lot less complicated and didn't feel so convoluted, it was simply

 

Time stop.

 

Grandmaster weapon specialization.

 

Level 20.