891 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

For exactly that reason. Because one was more skilled at shooting vulnerable areas.

Incorrect. They have the same training. So why would one fire at a spot that's not vulnerable?

[Cyonan]

You still haven't described the basis for that requirement.

 

The basis is that a shooter is supposed to be about player skill. To allow the character to affect how your equipment functions cheapens that reliance on skill.

 

That's terrible GMing. The stats should be paramount. All the player's word choice adds is flavour.

 

It was a diplomacy check, which means the word choice is the player declaring the action they're trying to take.

 

The roll the player made determined that the the lord believed his threats were genuine, but the player poorly worded the action that he wanted to take. It would be like me wanting to attack somebody but saying "I hug him" instead. It's not bad GMing when my character attempts to hug a bandit when I said that I was going to hug them.

 

The roll was highly effective, but the player didn't word their intended action properly so it was effective in a way they didn't intend.

[Il Divo]

The basis is that a shooter is supposed to be about player skill. To allow the character to affect how your equipment functions cheapens that reliance on skill.

 

 

It was a diplomacy check, which means the word choice is the player declaring the action they're trying to take.

 

The roll the player made determined that the the lord believed his threats were genuine, but the player poorly worded the action that he wanted to take. It would be like me wanting to attack somebody but saying "I hug him" instead. It's not bad GMing when my character attempts to hug a bandit when I said that I was going to hug them.

 

The roll was highly effective, but the player didn't word their intended action properly so it was effective in a way they didn't intend.

 

^When I've had these situations crop up, it's not uncommon for the DM to give a bonus (or a penalty) depending on how extreme the action is. Using your scenario here, you might have a high roll on a Diplomacy check, and the DM will apply a penalty for how crazy the worded action is. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This doesn't happen to my characters. If you make it happen to yours by playing in those conditions, that's your problem.

Let's assume you're injured.

If you play today, your character is injured.

If you wait until tomorrow, your character (in exactly the same in-game circumstances) isn't injured.

Is that what you're saying?

If you like. I'm saying that the basis doesn't matter. The skill simply exists; where it comes from is irrelevant.

It's relevant because it affects to coherence of the setting. I covered this earlier.

If you're going to reject my initial premise, just do that. Don't string me along.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Incorrect. They have the same training. So why would one fire at a spot that's not vulnerable?

If they had the same training and experience, they'd have the same stats.

[Cyonan]

^When I've had these situations crop up, it's not uncommon for the DM to give a bonus (or a penalty) depending on how extreme the action is. Using your scenario here, you might have a high roll on a Diplomacy check, and the DM will apply a penalty for how crazy the worded action is. 

 

In the context of the scenario it wasn't actually a very crazy thing.

 

The nation had already been attacked by the bad guy before and we were trying to rally an army. It's just that the way the player worded their intended diplomacy, they made it sound like he was the bad guy and was going to attack again.

[AlanC9]

It's a problem inherent to any game based on player skill. In a stat-based game, what you describe shouldn't even be possible.

But all games require player skill of some kind, or they'd play themselves. No game's going to stop a drunk player from making bad decisions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But all games require player skill of some kind, or they'd play themselves. No game's going to stop a drunk player from making bad decisions.

The only bad decision in an RPG is one that isn't in character, and only the the player is equipped to judge that.

Aside from that, RPGs do play themselves. The player doesn't need to be able to aim a gun of fight with a sword or cast magic spells. He simply declares his intention that his character do those things, and the character does it.

Remember, there's no winning or losing in an RPG. There's just playing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The basis is that a shooter is supposed to be about player skill. To allow the character to affect how your equipment functions cheapens that reliance on skill.

That's a question begging argument.

It was a diplomacy check, which means the word choice is the player declaring the action they're trying to take.

The roll the player made determined that the the lord believed his threats were genuine, but the player poorly worded the action that he wanted to take. It would be like me wanting to attack somebody but saying "I hug him" instead. It's not bad GMing when my character attempts to hug a bandit when I said that I was going to hug them.

The roll was highly effective, but the player didn't word their intended action properly so it was effective in a way they didn't intend.

Then the GM made the wrong roll. The GM should be measuring success against the player's intent, not the player's inability to express that intent.

The GM needs to ask more questions.

[RoboticWater]

So if the player suffers an injury, the character suffers an injury?

That doesn't work. What if the player is paralyzed? We can seein the game that the character isn't paralyzed.

How does a paralyzed person play any game? Besides, their exact disability doesn't have to translate precisely. If I have carpal tunnel in one of my hands, maybe I can't move the camera as quickly, so my character maybe has slower reaction times in combat. For a person so willing make up his own logic to fill in the gaps of an RPG, you don't seem willing to do it for anything you don't like.

It's a problem inherent to any game based on player skill. In a stat-based game, what you describe shouldn't even be possible.

But playing a role by definition requires some skill. What you seem to describe is "role defining." You set your stats and proceed through every encounter saying "my character does what my character would do," and nothing more. Of course that doesn't take any skill, you're not actually doing anything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How does a paralyzed person play any game?

Language.

Besides, their exact disability doesn't have to translate precisely. If I have carpal tunnel in one of my hands, maybe I can't move the camera as quickly, so my character maybe has slower reaction times in combat. For a person so willing make up his own logic to fill in the gaps of an RPG, you don't seem to do it for anything you don't like.

In this case, there aren't any gaps to fill. There are stats.

If the game merely tests my ability to press buttons effectively, it's not much of a game.

But playing a role by definition requires some skill. What you seem to describe is "role defining." You set your stats and proceed through every encounter saying "my character does what my character would do," and nothing more. Of course that doesn't take any skill, you're not actually doing anything.

If the player was somehow able to define his character in sufficient detail such that it was unambiguous what that character would do in any given situation, that's exactly how it would work.

That's exactly how I try to play. I hope never to have to make things up during the game. I just refer back to my initial character design and follow the reasoning wherever it leads.

This is why I stopped playing DA2. At some point, there was just no option available that was consistent with my character's design, so that playthrough ended.

I don't, as a general rule, make things up as I play. I've advocated that as a strategy for people who have trouble understanding that NPCs can be different in different playthroughs, but I don't actually do it.

[Cyonan]

That's a question begging argument.

 

That's the general reasoning of it.

 

The guns exist to allow for variety in playstyle but ultimately the gameplay is supposed to come down to player skill at shooting. If you want more damage out of your assault rifle, you learn how to get headshots.

 

Things that take away reliance on player skill are like things in a RPG that take away the ability to roleplay.

 

Then the GM made the wrong roll. The GM should be measuring success against the player's intent, not the player's inability to express that intent.

The GM needs to ask more questions.

 

When somebody says "I hug the bandit" it's not the GM's job to say "Now do you really intend to hug the bandit?".

 

It's the player's fault when they declare one action but intended something completely different and the GM ruled their character took the original action they actually declared.

 

If you're drunk then your decision making will be even worse, making you potentially declare even stupider actions for your character.

[Il Divo]

The only bad decision in an RPG is one that isn't in character, and only the the player is equipped to judge that.

Aside from that, RPGs do play themselves. The player doesn't need to be able to aim a gun of fight with a sword or cast magic spells. He simply declares his intention that his character do those things, and the character does it.

Remember, there's no winning or losing in an RPG. There's just playing.

 

Still, if we're using your drunk player scenario, I think there's a point to make that someone who is ****** drunk is far less likely to be able to play their character relative to a sober player. 

[RoboticWater]

Language.

Yes, for all of those CRPG with voice controls. At that point we could just have the paralyzed person telling someone else how they would like to see them play Halo.
 

In this case, there aren't any gaps to fill. There are stats.

Yes, the analog of stats in an action game is more player skill. That doesn't mean there isn't any skill involved in RPG.
 

If the game merely tests my ability to press buttons effectively, it's not much of a game.

Ignoring your gross oversimplification of action games, I have to ask why? Howl your definition of RPG at the moon all you want, but don't try and pawn it off as the definition for all games.
 

If the player was somehow able to define his character in sufficient detail such that it was unambiguous what that character would do in any given situation, that's exactly how it would work.

That's exactly how I try to play. I hope never to have to make things up during the game. I just refer back to my initial character design and follow the reasoning wherever it leads.

This is why I stopped playing DA2. At some point, there was just no option available that was consistent with my character's design, so that playthrough ended.

I don't, as a general rule, make things up as I play. I've advocated that as a strategy for people who have trouble understanding that NPCs can be different in different playthroughs, but I don't actually do it.

But following your initial design takes skill. At the beginning of an RPG, you don't foresee every single scenario the game will present you with and then come up with an in-character solution beforehand. You create a profile of the character you're roleplaying and generate in-character responses to situations on the spot. Generating those responses requires skill.

 

Even so, extrapolating a character's actions from their profile before or after the start of a game requires skill. If I'm drunk, I'm probably going to make dumb decisions at any time.

[capn233]

The last few pages have been productive I see.

 

If we're going to hug bandits in MEA then we will need Kelly on the crew after all.

[Cyonan]

The last few pages have been productive I see.

 

If we're going to hug bandits in MEA then we will need Kelly on the crew after all.

 

When it comes to hugging bandits all I can say is

 

Never nat 1 a grapple check in combat multiple times in a row.

 

It gets weird.

[AlanC9]

Let's assume you're injured.
If you play today, your character is injured.
If you wait until tomorrow, your character (in exactly the same in-game circumstances) isn't injured.
Is that what you're saying?

Yes. The price I pay for greater integration between my own skills and my character's skills is that my own debilitations are passed on to the character, if I decide to play while I am in a debilitated state. This is mostly theoretical, though, since I don't do that.

It's relevant because it affects to coherence of the setting. I covered this earlier.
If you're going to reject my initial premise, just do that. Don't string me along.

I guess I am rejecting the premise, then. I see an RPG character as being a fusion of the stat-derived abilities and abilities which derive from the intelligence and judgement of the player. Different systems can put different abilities into either category.

[AlanC9]

The only bad decision in an RPG is one that isn't in character, and only the the player is equipped to judge that.

I think "stupid" would have been clearer than "bad" there. If I'm drunk my PC is going to be stupider than he otherwise would have been.

[capn233]

Hey now, it is quite possible that Shepard is exactly as stupid if he is being played drunk as if he is being played sober.  Although the crew is more amusing.

[themikefest]

If they had the same training and experience, they'd have the same stats.

And what are the stats?

[In Exile]

The only bad decision in an RPG is one that isn't in character, and only the the player is equipped to judge that.

Aside from that, RPGs do play themselves. The player doesn't need to be able to aim a gun of fight with a sword or cast magic spells. He simply declares his intention that his character do those things, and the character does it.

Remember, there's no winning or losing in an RPG. There's just playing.

 

But the very declaration of intent requires player skill. I can't declare (usually) "wins combat through superior tactical acumen". Often we have to engage in more minute actions that require IRL skills that in-setting characters should have - often mental abilities. I could have a dumb warrior and that limits my skills, but it doesn't make me dumb - I have to pretend. And vice versa for tactical acumen. 

[Il Divo]

But the very declaration of intent requires player skill. I can't declare (usually) "wins combat through superior tactical acumen". Often we have to engage in more minute actions that require IRL skills that in-setting characters should have - often mental abilities. I could have a dumb warrior and that limits my skills, but it doesn't make me dumb - I have to pretend. And vice versa for tactical acumen. 

 

That's a good point. DA:O might not have huge amounts of reflex-based gameplay, but player skill always enters the picture. If you're playing a character much more strategic/tactical than you are in real life, that's not going to make your in-game strategies/tactics any better. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes, for all of those CRPG with voice controls. At that point we could just have the paralyzed person telling someone else how they would like to see them play Halo.

Exactly. And if that works, and the person using the controls doesn't affect the gameplay at all (because player skills don't matter), then that game has met my standard.

But in an action game, if the guy with his hands on the controls plays poorly, then the actual player (the one giving voice commands) is separated from his character. The player isn't able to decide what the character will do, because there's a barrier between his choices and the execution of those choices.

The same thing is true for all players of all action games; this example merely highlights it.

But following your initial design takes skill. At the beginning of an RPG, you don't foresee every single scenario the game will present you with and then come up with an in-character solution beforehand. You create a profile of the character you're roleplaying and generate in-character responses to situations on the spot. Generating those responses requires skill.

It requires time. Skill just makes the process go faster, so making the decisions time-sensitive is a problem. But if the player can have as much time as he needs to make those decisions, there's no skill involved. It's just simple arithmetic.

I define a hierarchy of values for my character, broad objectives, and a system of reasoning. That provides all answers, or reveals where there are none (in which case any choice is in-character, because my character simply doesn't care about that).

Even so, extrapolating a character's actions from their profile before or after the start of a game requires skill. If I'm drunk, I'm probably going to make dumb decisions at any time.

I'll concede that. There is a minimum level of skill required, but it's a level of skill every person possesses. There's no relevant differentiation between players. Any two players (assuming those playera are people) should be equally capable of playing. One might play faster, or with less mental effort, but each player's ability to make in-character decisions should be equal.

And again, the only person qualified to judge how well a player has played is that player himself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But the very declaration of intent requires player skill. I can't declare (usually) "wins combat through superior tactical acumen". Often we have to engage in more minute actions that require IRL skills that in-setting characters should have - often mental abilities. I could have a dumb warrior and that limits my skills, but it doesn't make me dumb - I have to pretend. And vice versa for tactical acumen.

In a tabletop game, the GM could adjust the enemies to be dumber than you, thus simulating your character's tactical acumen without you having to possess it. Or tactical acumen could be modeled through your attacks being more effective, thus tilting the battle in your favour the same way superior tactics would.

CRPG combat already abstracts things like damage. It could use those same systems for tactics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And what are the stats?

Whatever the system has. Accuracy. Damage. Weapon skills.

Character skills arise from past experience and training. If you play the same game twice with two different sets of character skills, then those two characters have different backstories (at insofar as their training and experience go).