151 réponses à ce sujet

[ZipZap2000]

I was more just noting that Marksman is an option. Even without it you can get Warp or AP Rounds as any class. Warp Rounds especially are very potent on biotics because the tooltip is wrong about "increased damage to already lifted targets". It's a multiplicative damage bonus against any biotically primed target, not just those that are lifted.

I know it wont work exactly like ME3, but it's still the best benchmark we have for Mass Effect combat at the moment so that's what I use.

I'm not talking about which is most popular because I don't give a damn about that. Infiltrators in ME3 already challenge the weapon superiority of Soldiers because Tactical Cloak is simply broken. A lot more so than Adrenaline Rush is without the MP changes.

Soldiers are supposed to be the weapon masters. Ammo Powers in ME3 were the only thing even letting them stay in the competition because Incendiary Rounds are about the only thing even more broken than Tactical Cloak was, and that was because of a bug.

A better solution is to just nerf Tactical Cloak. It's way too strong in its ME3 iteration anyway.

Keep in mind this isn't my actual opinion about what should happen with ammo powers. It was just asked what the counter-argument would be and this was the best thing I could think of.

I think that ammo powers should become mods again like in ME1 and Soldiers should be compensated for it elsewhere so they keep their weapon superiority over the other classes.

Still nerf Tactical Cloak though =P

See. BSN does have real conversations.

I agree its simpler.

[Malanek]

If the result is a set of rules which render the game's setting internally contradictory, that's nonsensical.

Realism does not matter. Coherence does.

 And in this case you are talking about realism based on the games lore.

[Malanek]

 

I think that ammo powers should become mods again like in ME1 and Soldiers should be compensated for it elsewhere so they keep their weapon superiority over the other classes.

 

Out of interest, how would you compensate them? You would go beyond simply nerfing tactical cloak?

 

The ammo powers tick so many boxes of what you want to give them. They focus on improving the gun (nearly) passively, they give a variety of believable effects, and they open up different build options. I think before anyone suggests they should revert to equipment, they should actually suggest a well designed alternative.

[Cyonan]

Out of interest, how would you compensate them? You would go beyond simply nerfing tactical cloak?

 

The ammo powers tick so many boxes of what you want to give them. They focus on improving the gun (nearly) passively, they give a variety of believable effects, and they open up different build options. I think before anyone suggests they should revert to equipment, they should actually suggest a well designed alternative.

 

There's a few ideas I would play around with:

 

1. Take Adrenaline Rush and split it. Overkill becomes the new offensive variant that grants a free reload and increased weapon damage. Since it's a brand new engine and reload times aren't set in stone you could reduce the reload time or do other things like rate of fire, movement speed, etc. through evolutions. Immunity becomes the new defensive version that can give DR, shields, etc.

 

I would probably also give them another ability since they would be losing a lot from the loss of 3 ammo powers. Maybe Flamer to allow for a non weapons build with the Soldier.

 

2. Just give Adrenaline Rush all of the MP balance changes. Seriously, that ability in MP is basically already on par with Tactical Cloak.

 

3. Keep Adrenaline Rush as is and maybe even nerf it but give them something like Devastator Mode from ME3 MP to compensate.

 

The thing about suggesting a well designed alternative is that they already have a working model: Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer. It already allows for every class to use any ammo power but Soldiers and Infiltrators are still the top weapon users right now.

 

I would also probably make the time dilation of AR purely an evolution. Not so much for balance reasons but because I hate time dilation and don't want it as a base effect.

[Mikael_Sebastia]

I don't think a nonsensical design can make a good game, because a game world that doesn't make sense fundamentally breaks roleplaying.

 

If I think about this, every roleplaying game (a tabletop or video game) is to its core is nonsensical and fundamentally breaks roleplaying.  

 

As an example,  how do you feel about two very common RPG mechanics like experience points and hit points? The principle is not that different from let's say special ammo abilities or AD&D's weapon restrictions. All these are just very abstract, simplified and ambiguous means to model otherwise very complex "real world" phenomenona or representations of them. There are differences and some mechanics achieve their goal better than others, but regardless you are going to bump into constraints, incoherences and varying degree of abstractness, if you play RPGs.  

 

It's quite often just sort of reversed cherry picking when proposedly "a game world doesn't make sense". All roleplaying games are based to kind of "an understanding" between participants, about what and how a game is trying to achieve or "tell". Then it's about particulars on what to focus and on what kind of abstraction level there is. Like modeling a trauma or learning with a simple arithmetic is not really that different from preventing magic-users from using swords. This is supposed to represent a time and effort it takes for anybody to learn magic, which excludes them from learning other skills. Also it has secondary function to balance classes between each other, which isn't rooted in a game lore exactly, but neither does a lore contradict that player classes shouldn't be balanced compared to each other. Even if it isn't explicitly stated anywhere. Also it's allegorical to a real world myths and literary traditions, which often set a magic as opposing force or at least contradicting one to a martial skills.

 

You cannot even wield a sword, that's true, but neither can you pick up a rock from a street or set a house on fire with a fireball, which can burn armored men into cinders. Actually if rules should reflect lore absolutely accurately, there shouldn't be houses or any buildings at all nor could they be destroyed by any means.  Rules and mechanics omit everything related to buildings totally, but  in case of locked doors which can be picked open or forced open.  Immersion totally ruined.

 

I don't say your arguments wouldn't have any merit, that there couldn't be incoherence or lack of simulating which is harmful for a RPG, but to be honest you take this "it's not roleplaying"-thing to an absurd level.

[Cyonan]

You cannot even wield a sword, that's true, but neither can you pick up a rock from a street or set a house on fire with a fireball, which can burn armored men into cinders. Actually if rules should reflect lore absolutely accurately, there shouldn't be houses or any buildings at all nor could they be destroyed by any means.  Rules and mechanics omit everything related to buildings totally, but  in case of locked doors which can be picked open or forced open.  Immersion totally ruined.

 

To be fair video games don't do this because it would require insane amounts of extra work to allow for stuff like this and at some point a line has to be drawn.

 

However in pen and paper games a good GM will definitely let you burn houses down.

 

and probably send high level bounty hunters and guards after you for torching entire buildings, but you can still burn the houses down.

[capn233]

Out of interest, how would you compensate them? You would go beyond simply nerfing tactical cloak?

 

The ammo powers tick so many boxes of what you want to give them. They focus on improving the gun (nearly) passively, they give a variety of believable effects, and they open up different build options. I think before anyone suggests they should revert to equipment, they should actually suggest a well designed alternative.

 

It is pretty difficult, without simply making Soldier a carbon copy of one of the caster classes whose powers just get "combat bonuses" instead of bonus from tech or biotic upgrades.

 

Even assuming you want to chop down Adrenaline Rush into essentially 2 different powers, or simply cut the weapon damage out and give Soldiers both ARush and Marksman, you still have 4 more powers to fill in (assuming grenades aren't a power any longer either).  Filling in with MP powers actually is relatively unsatisfying to me when attempting this exercise.

 

*snip*

 

The thing about suggesting a well designed alternative is that they already have a working model: Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer.

 

Unfortunately they have half the powers of the SP classes.  So how many powers should characters in Andromeda have?  Cutting powers to make it easier to design soldier hurts the design of Adept or Engineer.  That is assuming the combo spam combat model is fixed (since you don't need more than 2 powers for combo spam model).

[Malanek]

There's a few ideas I would play around with:

 

1. Take Adrenaline Rush and split it. Overkill becomes the new offensive variant that grants a free reload and increased weapon damage. Since it's a brand new engine and reload times aren't set in stone you could reduce the reload time or do other things like rate of fire, movement speed, etc. through evolutions. Immunity becomes the new defensive version that can give DR, shields, etc.

 

I would probably also give them another ability since they would be losing a lot from the loss of 3 ammo powers. Maybe Flamer to allow for a non weapons build with the Soldier.

 

2. Just give Adrenaline Rush all of the MP balance changes. Seriously, that ability in MP is basically already on par with Tactical Cloak.

 

3. Keep Adrenaline Rush as is and maybe even nerf it but give them something like Devastator Mode from ME3 MP to compensate.

 

The thing about suggesting a well designed alternative is that they already have a working model: Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer. It already allows for every class to use any ammo power but Soldiers and Infiltrators are still the top weapon users right now.

 

I would also probably make the time dilation of AR purely an evolution. Not so much for balance reasons but because I hate time dilation and don't want it as a base effect.

It's all well and good redesigning Adrenaline rush which is going to happen anyway but for the class to be filled out they need quite a bit more. I personally believe Soldiers should definitely have a passive ability that boosts weapon damage. They are a class that is most shooter like and you should be able to play them effectively without having to use lots of powers. You look at other various games with skills and there is almost always a spot for this sort of simple ability that buffs your attacks.

 

Devastator Mode and Hawk Missile Launcher sort of fill this role but I don't think either of them are actually as interesting as the ammo powers.

 

I really like the idea behind Siege Pulse. It can work well as a passive, can interact well with other powers for burst, or it can be used frequently as a commonly used power. I would consider more things like that as replacements, but I think simply adding more powers is not particularly good design for that class.

[Cyonan]

It's all well and good redesigning Adrenaline rush which is going to happen anyway but for the class to be filled out they need quite a bit more. I personally believe Soldiers should definitely have a passive ability that boosts weapon damage. They are a class that is most shooter like and you should be able to play them effectively without having to use lots of powers. You look at other various games with skills and there is almost always a spot for this sort of simple ability that buffs your attacks.

 

Devastator Mode and Hawk Missile Launcher sort of fill this role but I don't think either of them are actually as interesting as the ammo powers.

 

I really like the idea behind Siege Pulse. It can work well as a passive, can interact well with other powers for burst, or it can be used frequently as a commonly used power. I would consider more things like that as replacements, but I think simply adding more powers is not particularly good design for that class.

 

Well Soldiers have 3 ammo powers which is why I'm suggesting adding more to help fill the void left by taking those away. If you were to split Adrenaline Rush that would make up 1. You're still missing two, but that's why I mentioned giving them something else.

 

I don't see how Devastator Mode is any less interesting than Ammo since both are just "activate and leave it on for the entire mission". Giving them flamer also allows for an actual entirely new build that's not weapon focused and is an alternative to Concussive Shot spamming.

 

Hex Shield might work as well, providing the soldier with mobile cover. You could give it an evolution upgrade so that bullets fired through the shield by an ally gain a weak disruptor rounds effect as well.

 

You could also give them something like Geth Hunter Mode that highlights targets even through cover for them. Not strictly speaking a weapon boost, but some nice combat utility all the same.

 

I'm also suggesting stuff like this because the general "Click button, receive weapon damage increase" role is already filled by Adrenaline Rush so I'm trying to find other cool stuff for the Soldier to do. A buffed up AR alone can give the Soldier the weapon superiority they're supposed to have.

 

Unfortunately they have half the powers of the SP classes.  So how many powers should characters in Andromeda have?  Cutting powers to make it easier to design soldier hurts the design of Adept or Engineer.  That is assuming the combo spam combat model is fixed (since you don't need more than 2 powers for combo spam model).

 

I'd rather not cut the number of powers of Soldiers(and everybody else) but instead give them other things to do, since as I noted a buffed up Adrenaline Rush is enough by itself to let them be the weapon masters.

[Malanek]

Well Soldiers have 3 ammo powers which is why I'm suggesting adding more to help fill the void left by taking those away. If you were to split Adrenaline Rush that would make up 1. You're still missing two, but that's why I mentioned giving them something else.

 

I don't see how Devastator Mode is any less interesting than Ammo since both are just "activate and leave it on for the entire mission". Giving them flamer also allows for an actual entirely new build that's not weapon focused and is an alternative to Concussive Shot spamming.

 

Hex Shield might work as well, providing the soldier with mobile cover. You could give it an evolution upgrade so that bullets fired through the shield by an ally gain a weak disruptor rounds effect as well.

 

You could also give them something like Geth Hunter Mode that highlights targets even through cover for them. Not strictly speaking a weapon boost, but some nice combat utility all the same.

 

I'm also suggesting stuff like this because the general "Click button, receive weapon damage increase" role is already filled by Adrenaline Rush so I'm trying to find other cool stuff for the Soldier to do. A buffed up AR alone can give the Soldier the weapon superiority they're supposed to have.

 

I find Devastator Mode less interesting because I would rather see things freeze, burn, get electrocuted etc and having all the possibilities that go along with those effects than simply receive more damage. Hunter mode is interesting and the right sort of area, it doesn't immediately strike me as a solider power though. I'm not saying there is no place for devastator mode, but it has a less interesting effect.

 

The ammo powers had a significantly different role to Adrenaline rush as a passive rather than activated buff.

 

As I said above, I don't think simply giving Soldiers more powers is the correct thing for the class. It is a class that should be relatively simple to play for all the players that want to run and gun. Giving it a bunch of new activated powers isn't right for the class. It would be great if the class could effectively be played either way, but doing so would require very good design with more stuff like Siege Pulse.

[capn233]

I'd rather not cut the number of powers of Soldiers(and everybody else) but instead give them other things to do, since as I noted a buffed up Adrenaline Rush is enough by itself to let them be the weapon masters.

 

Right but there needs to be a compelling reason to use the other things.  Buffing ARush might very well make them as powerful as the other classes, but then you have 5 filler powers.  Even splitting it makes 4 filler powers.

 

Ammo powers were extra damage on soldier, but in ME2 and ME3 they were also their main source of CC.  While I would agree that Soldier should be the weakest CC class, should he get any active CC powers besides a Concussive Shot-like stagger power to replace them?

 

I don't know that we can add that many unique sustains on top of what will amount to Immunity and Marksman + CS.  I personally don't think a Hunter Mode like power should exist in the game.  I am ok with thermal scopes to an extent, but gear or powers that give permanent wallhacks probably shouldn't return.  Devastator Mode is basically just sustained Marksman, how are they going to stack?

 

The Hex Shield idea is sort of interesting, that might be an angle to explore.  Or a shield that is sort of like the Paladin's / Rampart Mech's.  It does have a little overlap with Immunity...

[Mikael_Sebastia]

To be fair video games don't do this because it would require insane amounts of extra work to allow for stuff like this and at some point a line has to be drawn.

 

 

Exactly, although my intent was not to criticize any game designer.  Not everything can be included or focused on, even making a simulation or model of that complex events or environments would be a herculean task, little alone doing an emergent and interactive game. Cannot be done, unless we reach some sort unforeseeable technological / computing singularity.  So I agree that lines must be drawn. I am merely wondering why some of them are so bothersome to some, and some are not.
 

 

However in pen and paper games a good GM will definitely let you burn houses down.

 

and probably send high level bounty hunters and guards after you for torching entire buildings, but you can still burn the houses down.

 

 

True, although nowadays some pen&papers are really formalized and minimalistic that rulewise they almost resemble boardgames. Situations like "burning houses" might've been confined totally out of possible options players can do or what can happen in a game narrative. And some pen&papers don't even have GMs ;P, but a narrative authority has been equally distributed between all players. Waters have gotten increasingly muddier since late nineties, of what a pen&paper roleplaying game "is" or what is consists of. Some damn fine artsy fartsy sh!t has been produced though.

[capn233]

Lot of power overlap in ME3.

 

Weapon Buff - Marksman, Devastator Mode, Adrenaline Rush, Hunter Mode, Stim Pack

 

Defense / DR - Adrenaline Rush, Fortification, Stim Pack, Hex Shield

 

Stagger - Concussive Shot, Carnage, Hawk Missile, Proximity Mine, Ballistic Blades, Siege Pulse

 

Debuff - Tactical Scan, Proximity Mine

 

Grenades - Various

 

Picking one from each, with a nameless other power gets you to 6.  Assuming grenades are still going to be a power.  I don't really know how interesting this Soldier would be necessarily.  Adrenaline Rush may very well end up Marksman + Immunity so you could just replace it or whatever.

 

Actually what is more interesting to me than picking out of this is wondering if it might be possible to have active powers that turn into sustains if you take a specific evolution.  Example would be something like Concussive Shot going into a sustained mode like Hawk Missile if you took the right evolution.  Of course stacking sustains may not be conducive to great balance.

[Cyonan]

I find Devastator Mode less interesting because I would rather see things freeze, burn, get electrocuted etc and having all the possibilities that go along with those effects than simply receive more damage. Hunter mode is interesting and the right sort of area, it doesn't immediately strike me as a solider power though. I'm not saying there is no place for devastator mode, but it has a less interesting effect.

 

The ammo powers had a significantly different role to Adrenaline rush as a passive rather than activated buff.

 

As I said above, I don't think simply giving Soldiers more powers is the correct thing for the class. It is a class that should be relatively simple to play for all the players that want to run and gun. Giving it a bunch of new activated powers isn't right for the class. It would be great if the class could effectively be played either way, but doing so would require very good design with more stuff like Siege Pulse.

 

The ammo allowed for more options from a design standpoint(from a gameplay Incendiary was far superior, but I'll assume that would change) although to be fair freezing, burning, and electrocuting is the Engineer's thing. Those ammo powers are basically "Engineer in a gun".

 

If you gave them the abilities I talked about it would still be simple to play, because you don't actually need to have things like mobile cover or Hunter Mode. They simply open up new options for the Soldier to use in combat, but you could still get away with spamming nothing but Adrenaline Rush. Maybe less so on Insanity, but then that's supposed to be hard.

 

In this theoretical scenario where we're taking away 3 ammo powers from the Soldier we have to give them something, but what it seems you don't want is 3 new active abilities but rather something passive to replace the ammo powers. The only thing I could think of for that would be to do something similar and have "armour modes". One mode could increase DR/healing, one could increase movement/reload speed, and the other could increase damage or something like that. Maybe throw in some CC resistance on one of them. There's a lot of things you could do.

 

There would be some overlap with what AR is already doing but honestly, ammo powers already are overlapping since they're both damage buffs.

 

It would functionally be similar to how ammo works now, would provide various combat boosts for the Soldier, and would actually provide more options than just "shoot things with different elemental damage types".

 

Right but there needs to be a compelling reason to use the other things.  Buffing ARush might very well make them as powerful as the other classes, but then you have 5 filler powers.  Even splitting it makes 4 filler powers.

 

Ammo powers were extra damage on soldier, but in ME2 and ME3 they were also their main source of CC.  While I would agree that Soldier should be the weakest CC class, should he get any active CC powers besides a Concussive Shot-like stagger power to replace them?

 

I don't know that we can add that many unique sustains on top of what will amount to Immunity and Marksman + CS.  I personally don't think a Hunter Mode like power should exist in the game.  I am ok with thermal scopes to an extent, but gear or powers that give permanent wallhacks probably shouldn't return.  Devastator Mode is basically just sustained Marksman, how are they going to stack?

 

The Hex Shield idea is sort of interesting, that might be an angle to explore.  Or a shield that is sort of like the Paladin's / Rampart Mech's.  It does have a little overlap with Immunity...

 

I went for Hex Shield because it's got an obvious combat utility in mobile cover. I was hesitant to suggest wallhacks because of how overpowered they are but figured I would throw it out there.

 

If we wanted another avenue of CC something like Hawk Missile Launcher would work if the force was increased on it. It would provide some passive CC but the mechanics of it ensure that it wouldn't be on par with things like Stasis or Singularity.

[Cyonan]

True, although nowadays some pen&papers are really formalized and minimalistic that rulewise they almost resemble boardgames. Situations like "burning houses" might've been confined totally out of possible options players can do or what can happen in a game narrative. And some pen&papers don't even have GMs ;P, but a narrative authority has been equally distributed between all players. Waters have gotten increasingly muddier since late nineties, of what a pen&paper roleplaying game "is" or what is consists of. Some damn fine artsy fartsy sh!t has been produced though.

 

Could just be my GM then, cause he'd let us blow stuff up but would start sending people after us.

 

Hell he let one of the players turn villain on the party and blow our own damn ship up.

[Mikael_Sebastia]

Could just be my GM then, cause he'd let us blow stuff up but would start sending people after us.

 

Hell he let one of the players turn villain on the party and blow our own damn ship up.

 

Oh, sorry but that's not exactly what I am referring to. I need to clarify that I wasn't writing about any individual player or DM. I was talking about certain pen and paper role-playing games /rule-sets, which by their rules impose heavy restrictions on what DM or players can do or what's suppose to happen in a game, unlike more traditional RGPs like D&D or Vampire: The Masquerade . I am not surprised if this sounds foreign in the context of tabletops. These type of games are not widely played or known compared to more popular and traditional games like aforementioned ones.  

 

It's an obscure niche of obscure hobby, but they qualify as RPGs, and the point I was trying to make that even some tabletop roleplaying games can limit a game narrative and freedom of both players and DM (in case there is one), which is not depended at all of whom are playing the game.

 

Here and here are couple extreme examples of these type of "indie games". 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, and this was actually my entire point.

Basically you have the "adept should get all ammos because they can use a gun" which is equivalent to "soldier should get overload because he can use an omnitool."

Is there some skill involved in using the omnitool? If there were, this problem would go away.

I suggest that the Soldier's supremacy with weapons should come in the form of increased accuracy and damage.

[ZipZap2000]

Ok so I've come up with this after reviewing my own posts and looking at what lakus said.

Basically bringing back ammo mods as "Runes" in a sense.

I'll call it a mod pack.

Each mod pack would come with levels 1-10 as usual.

But still carry the upgrade tree over to the weapon mod table. The difference being you now purchase upgrades for your mods, to fill the available slots. With the number of slots increasing the higher the level of the mod.

Similar to modding a weapon in ME1.

Hypothetical Mod pack. Level one: Basic three slot ammo upgrade tree.

Hypothetical mod upgrade lets say level five: Unlocks fourth and fifth slots.

But its the same as with ammo powers, there are four options to choose your upgrade from but only two slots.

You could have this more similar to crafting in dragon age with certain minerals producing different outcomes.

Lets say Palladium gives you more chance to freeze vs platinum further weakens armour.

Or.

Purchasing 'parts' to more fully customise your weapon and its mods using credits.

Both would have the same effect.

This would mean each player could decide the individual specs for each weapon to an extent.

You would actually being creating your own mods to truly mod your weapon for the first time.

Very few people agree with my serious posts so I'll just leave it here to gather dust. But basically you've convinced me that it should go back to a weapon mod.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then why does a multi-classed character with arcane caster levels get their spells disabled when wearing armour?

Good point.

The design is even less defensible then.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And in this case you are talking about realism based on the games lore.

The mechanics more than the lore, but yes. The lore should be subservient to the mechanics.

I still think realism is the wrong word to use, though.

[BloodyMares]

The further I read, the further I'm sure that ME1 had it covered. You had Weapon powers for higher damage/rate of fire, you had Immunity for damage reduction, you had Shield Boost for defence. The rest was compensated by grenades, ammo, weapon and armor mods (passives). Add Concussive Shot to this mix and we've got the perfect soldier class.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If I think about this, every roleplaying game (a tabletop or video game) is to its core is nonsensical and fundamentally breaks roleplaying.

As an example, how do you feel about two very common RPG mechanics like experience points and hit points? The principle is not that different from let's say special ammo abilities or AD&D's weapon restrictions. All these are just very abstract, simplified and ambiguous means to model otherwise very complex "real world" phenomenona or representations of them. There are differences and some mechanics achieve their goal better than others, but regardless you are going to bump into constraints, incoherences and varying degree of abstractness, if you play RPGs.

Abstractions are fine as long as they're internally consistent. Hit points, is particular, work really well for me, if they model damage the same way for everyone (as they do in tabletop RPGs).

And many game systems will even make explicit what XP actually represent, allowing the actual acquisition of skills to be done off-screen.

It's quite often just sort of reversed cherry picking when proposedly "a game world doesn't make sense". All roleplaying games are based to kind of "an understanding" between participants, about what and how a game is trying to achieve or "tell". Then it's about particulars on what to focus and on what kind of abstraction level there is. Like modeling a trauma or learning with a simple arithmetic is not really that different from preventing magic-users from using swords. This is supposed to represent a time and effort it takes for anybody to learn magic, which excludes them from learning other skills. Also it has secondary function to balance classes between each other, which isn't rooted in a game lore exactly, but neither does a lore contradict that player classes shouldn't be balanced compared to each other. Even if it isn't explicitly stated anywhere. Also it's allegorical to a real world myths and literary traditions, which often set a magic as opposing force or at least contradicting one to a martial skills.

If the lore supports the mechanics, this can work fine. I'm reminded of L.E. Modesitt's ChaosWar series of books, wherein Order Mages cannot even physically touch weapons without becoming violently ill.

You cannot even wield a sword, that's true, but neither can you pick up a rock from a street or set a house on fire with a fireball, which can burn armored men into cinders. Actually if rules should reflect lore absolutely accurately, there shouldn't be houses or any buildings at all nor could they be destroyed by any means. Rules and mechanics omit everything related to buildings totally, but in case of locked doors which can be picked open or forced open. Immersion totally ruined.

1st edition AD&D contained extensive rules relating to construction, and each different material had its own saving throw table. Is it a wooden structure? Save vs. Fire. Oh, it was a Fireball? Save vs. Magical Fire.

And if there simply aren't rules for it, that's fine too, as long as what we see isn't internally inconsistent. If the system contains no rules for buildings, then any behaviour of buildings is fine. But not any combination of behaviours; if two seemingly identical structures are subjected to relevantly similar circumstances, and they behave differently, and reason for that needs to be knowable.

I don't say your arguments wouldn't have any merit, that there couldn't be incoherence or lack of simulating which is harmful for a RPG, but to be honest you take this "it's not roleplaying"-thing to an absurd level.

I follow the reasoning wherever it leads.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Oh, sorry but that's not exactly what I am referring to. I need to clarify that I wasn't writing about any individual player or DM. I was talking about certain pen and paper role-playing games /rule-sets, which by their rules impose heavy restrictions on what DM or players can do or what's suppose to happen in a game, unlike more traditional RGPs like D&D or Vampire: The Masquerade . I am not surprised if this sounds foreign in the context of tabletops. These type of games are not widely played or known compared to more popular and traditional games like aforementioned ones.

It's an obscure niche of obscure hobby, but they qualify as RPGs, and the point I was trying to make that even some tabletop roleplaying games can limit a game narrative and freedom of both players and DM (in case there is one), which is not depended at all of whom are playing the game.

Here and here are couple extreme examples of these type of "indie games".

Those work, though, because they lay out, in advance, all of the restrictions that bind the players. The players know exactly what they can't do, so they can avoid constructing characters who would do them.

CRPGs never do this. They never explain, before character creation, what assumptions they've made for the player character. Until they start, they need do be more simulationist.

Too often, CRPGs are made to be played, like any other video game. And that's a problem. RPGs are something to be played with or played in. I maintain that the players' preferences should never directly affect the player character's behaviour. Roleplaying involves acting as someone else, from their point of view, acting as they would. When you make a decision for your character that would would rather the character not make, but you know that character's personality requires it, then you know you're roleplaying.

Those indie games you linked are terrific for that.

My one concern with the more narrative-focused rulesets is that the GM has too much discretion to determine outcomes. I would rather my success or failure ultimately be determined by a dice roll than the GM just saying yea or nay.

[capn233]

Is there some skill involved in using the omnitool? If there were, this problem would go away.

 

There isn't any actual reason to assume that omnitool use is more difficult that appropriately using custom ammo in the Mass Effect setting.  Making that problem go away implies that you are not in fact taking the adept button press argument to its logical conclusion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There isn't any actual reason to assume that omnitool use is more difficult that appropriately using custom ammo in the Mass Effect setting.

Is there reason to assume it isn't?

Both positions require justification.

Making that problem go away implies that you are not in fact taking the adept button press argument to its logical conclusion.

Assumptions are never logical. What I'm saying is that the game could solve this design problem by asserting that there's some relevant skill-related component.

Maybe using Cryo-Ammo isn't as simple as pressing a button. If the devs would explain the restriction, the apparent incongruity would go away.