|
Drakyn posted:The whole system you're describing here seems like a really, really nice way to avoid the typical sucks-at-all-trades-master-of-none issue with a class like the chanter or bard. You do a bit of everything all the time, but periodically you pick one thing, any one thing of the many, many things you do, and nail it out of the goddamned park. Bards didn't actually suck in the IE games, though?
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I never actually used a bard in an IE game. I just assumed they sucked. We've only got a limited number of slots here, and hmm... I can take a guy who can dual wield +5 flaming swords, or a guy who can call down lighting from heaven and summon demons to do his bidding, or... a dude with a lute. The dude with a lute casts stronger spells than the man in a skirt (though fewer, and gains access slower and not to all of them) and with buffs fights better than the flaming sword guy. Mr.Pibbleton posted:They had to take off their light armor to cast spells and their bard songs were pretty underpowered for the most part. I think some of the kits were halfway decent in baldur's gate 2, but Icewind dale II was probably when they were at their most useful. They had spellcasting at higher CL than actual mages, could use scrolls and wands, had special bard-only equipment* and were a lot better than clerics or mages as ranged support characters when you didn't want to micro-manage them (and made really good frontliners when you did bother to do that). * This is really good in BG1: there's a harp that casts dominate, a 5th level spell, with no cast time or projectile, that has 20 charges, costs 8k to buy/recharge, and is available within 30 minutes of starting the game. Mages get access to 5th level spells when they reach the XP cap! verybad fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:Bards were awesome in IWD. In BG2, their main handicap was that they could only cast spells up to 6th level (8th in IWD); the faster advancement and higher casting level was pretty nice in BG1. They get UAI and spike/time traps to make up for it, though, and their dispel/remove magic has a much higher success rate, so it's not too bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
I think a good way to promote potion (and other consumable) use would be to have them be the main type of magical item that is sold in stores. If there's nothing else to spend the gold on, I don't think the hoarders will have such a problem with using those consumables after all. Each consumable should also have a clear purpose and use, and there shouldn't be several types of potions that basically do the same thing, only slightly differently. I recently attempted a no-reload run in BG1, so I was playing a lot closer attention to consumable use than usually, and while having to think about the best way to use my resources, it was kind of annoying how, for example, there were like 4-5 different types of anti-magic potions, each with slightly different functions that only really amounted to "potion C is the best, use that" in the end. And even though I made effort to consumables, there were still many types that I could not think of a proper use for, or found too unreliably to make use of. By the way, long term potion buffs are actually a good way to prevent the abuse of rest mechanics in these games - I found myself much more reluctant to rest in the middle of a dungeon when that meant losing the 1 hour haste effect from my limited supply of oils of speed. verybad fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
SurrealityCheck posted:Eh I finished all infinity engine games on maximum difficulty without ever using a potion and barely ever buffing. IWD made it a bit harder but potions were never really "necessary", especially when fights most often turned on stupid things like whether or not you resist hold person or whatever. Gosh, if only there were potions for that!  The point about having to perform buff routines being boring is a good one. The Witcher -style toxicity limits would be one way to address that, so you'll have to make a tactical decision (which effects are the most important for me) and not just a strategic one (what resources I can spare). A better interface for buffing would go a long way in removing the tedium as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Intellect -> Power Strenght -> Size Problem solved? A Steampunk Gent posted:Yeah, this outcry over ~my strength immersion~ is ridiculous, it's great mechanic design and gives the player far more freedom in designing their characters. Just sit down, shut up and let the expert game designer do his work. Is it a great mechanic? Just because it sounds kind of nice on paper does not mean it accomplishes the goals it set out to achieve. Designs often look good on paper, that does not mean they end up mechanically sound in practice. Practically every game you've ever played has been designed by an expert game designer, but I'm sure you've noticed that a lot of them are flawed in one way or another -- and here's at least one flaw with PoE's attribute system: it does not make intuitive sense to large parts of its core audiance. Beyond that, there's not much else we can say about it right now, except that it looks kind of nice on paper. verybad fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Needs to work for guns too I will cut you
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
Pringles_School posted:But that's what happened? Things changed for PE after testing them out and they will continue to change based on it. It's on paper for US, but not for rope kid. That's almost certainly true for every other game as well, and it is no guarantee of success. We should keep an open mind and trust Obsidian, yes, but we should also give feedback on these things. I'm sure ropekid is aware that the current system isn't a one that makes intuitive sense to the playerbase, but how bad of a problem that is becomes only apparent from our reactions to it. If we're really uncomfortable with it, we should be making that big a-bloo-bloo about it so he knows he needs to change the system/its presentation. On other hand, if we're chill about it, he knows it's not a problem and they can focus on other aspects of the design.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:The problem is people aren't complaining that it's weak design so much as they're complaining that it ruins their authentic fantasy world simulation, and it's a bit rich to suggest that it's not intuitive when in order to complain about they design decision they've had to fully parse and comprehend it already. It's not that hard to rationalise INT as damage on melee characters anyway, just imagine it represents outplaying your opponent in the fight, landing blows in nasty places and superior combat form. My problem with it isn't that it can't be rationalized, it's that I think it's something that shouldn't need to be rationalized. This isn't a big deal for me, but it is something that strikes me as being a little off. There's something to be said for not ruining people's authentic fantasy world simulations, even in RPGs focused on tactical combat. I mean, ideally you'd want the player to feel like the character mechanics are working with them, and not against them, right? Disco Infiva posted:How abaout this? Instead of intelligence you have intuition? They are both INT, and intelligence has been so bastardized that people nowadays attribute it to whatever they want. I like power better, personally, but yeah if the system is otherwise sound, I think Obsidian should play around with the attribute names and see if they can come up with something that fits a bit better. verybad fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Pringles_School posted:I have a bit of a problem seeing the difference. The observer. AXE COP posted:I would have thought a bunch of rpg nerds would be down for making int the damage stat. Finally I can prove to those dumb jocks t high school that *i* am the real man!! Nah, most of us have had to realize by this point that we're not all that smart either so we gotta invent some abstract quality (which we believe we possess) from which we derive our True Power (though this magical attribute does not, curiously enough, help us in anyway in our meandering and pointless lives).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Male Man posted:How has this discussion gone on for more than one post where someone said "Eh, maybe a little weird but who cares?" What exactly is your ideal for discussion in this thread? None at all? You're right, this is not a big issue. I don't think it's going to be a deal-breaker for even the most grognardiest grognard who ever grognarded on this earth, but it's something we can have a conversation about and hopefully end up with a slightly improved game for everyone. If the attributes end up like this in the final game, Eternity will be an RPG with a slightly silly stat system (woah, first of its kind, surely!) but, you know, eh? Not a big deal. If there's something else you'd like to talk about, please feel free to do so! If we're discussing things that we're really worried about, my two biggest fears are a.) that this game will have a clunky interface and b.) poor character animation that leads to unresponsive gameplay. A.) because it's probably really loving hard to design a slick, well-working interface for an RPG with a billion different spells, special abilities, quick items and whatnots and b.) because the trailer looked really clunky (I know alpha footage and all), this probably isn't a huge priority (I, not knowing about the realities of game development on a limited budget and such, think it should be a priority but hey) and honestly Obsidian doesn't have a great track record on either of these issues. Fish Fry Andy posted:Intelligence as a damage stat is cool and I approve of it, being able to build a skilled precision fighter instead of just a guy who hits extremely hard with a hammer is significantly slick but also simultaneously neat. I think this is a really boring way to make a "smart" fighter type viable -- if my character concept is a guy who fights by using his wits and skill instead of brute force, I really don't want him to play exactly the same as the guy who fights with brute force. I'm not saying this is what happens in PoE, but that's something I hate about D&D games where certain feats give INT bonus to damage or whatever. Yeah, cool, my smart fighter is essentially the same as the strong fighter, woop-de-doo. verybad fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
I actually have a question about strength and the pack mechanics. The pack is inaccessible in combat, and characters can freely exchange items between their packs outside of combat, so what's to stop a wimpy wizard from having Edér or someone carry all his heavy grimoires for him so he doesn't have to invest in strenght himself? Or are the companions going to tell you to gently caress off when you ask them to carry your books for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
rope kid posted:A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this: Might and Power, though to me might carries a teensy bit more physical connotation than power does, and guns with either feels a bit off. Nothing I can't rationalize away, though (THEY'RE SOUL BULLETS OKAY).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:The original plan was that combat and non-combat skills would be drawn from separate pools, but I think since then they've transitioned to every skill having a combat use. Maybe acrobatics allows you to escape without a disengagement attack? I think you're confusing every attribute being valuable for combat with every skill being useful in combat. As far as I know, the idea is still to have combat and non-combat skills, each coming from a different pool so you're not having to choose between combat and non-combat utility (because the "correct" choice is always combat). Or have I missed an update? It does leave me wondering how many combat skills can there possibly be, though: stealth, detection, ???
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Baldur's Gate is about a guy playing bandits, merchant houses, and governments off each other in an effort to start a needless war between Baldur's Gate and Amn. You can ignore all that stuff if you want and you don't have to pay attention to it to beat the game, but it's kind of weird to say it's an old fashioned dungeon crawl or whatever that doesn't care about intrigue when the parts of the plot that aren't you finding out your ancestry are about unraveling Sarevok's complicated intrigues. Yeah but the way you uncover those intrigues is by kicking in the door of a house, murdering the inhabitants, stealing all their stuff and reading their letters to get the address of the next house you should murder-burgle. The intrigue isn't very well executed - the scene where Sarevok gets made a grand duke is downright comical!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Rope kid just addressed this elswhere, apparently: "Concentration is similar to Concentration in 3E/3.5 (somewhat similar to Poise in Dark Souls) but it is for everyone, not just spellcasters. Concentration prevents you from playing hit reactions when you take damage. If you cannot maintain Concentration, you will play a hit reaction and your attack/reload/spell is interrupted. We're still defining the system (in fact, I was messing around with the formulae before I sat down), but that's the general idea. They should call it Poise as well, then. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
rope kid posted:I think we're going to support right-click AoE scaling at least for guard functionality. I used it some but the guard button is like the first thing the IE interface sacrifices whenever more slots are needed for class abilities or whatever, and my parties generally don't have a lot of straight-up fighters in them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:That's awesome. I've always disliked the idea of grinding for XP because it really affects how you play the game, and it always seemed like a lazy way to implement a player progression mechanic to me. In Deus Ex Human Revolution, for example, the game falls all over itself telling you how many different ways you can play it, but the game incentivizes stealth gameplay over actiony guns blazing gameplay so much with such hugely unbalanced xp rewards for stealth that you're basically forced into full stealth mode all the time unless you want to be gimped as hell in the late game. With RPGs, this usually translates to "kill and loot absolutely everything that enters your field of view or suffer the opportunity cost of not doing so" which is just as limiting, really. While it's true that DEHR incentivizes stealth gameplay with XP rewards, you're hardly going to be gimped if you go through the game guns blazing. It doesn't really matter what augs you have as long as you've upgraded your weapons and have ammunition for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
rope kid posted:All characters can invest in the Stealth skill, though rogues and a few other classes start with a bonus in it. When you enable Scouting mode (which is used both for stealth and searching), you will see circles of varying radii around your characters (exact visualization TBD, but we want it to "fit") based on their Stealth skills compared to a relative average of creature perception ratings on the level. There is both a minimum and maximum base size for these circles. If the characters are bunched up, at the places where the circles overlap, they merge together to essentially form what looks like a "cloud" of no-touch-zone. While Scouting, all party members move at walking speed. I'm confused here - what's the purpose of the circle around my characters? Does the enemy detect me when their circle touches my circle, or when it touches my character? If it's the first, since the radius of the circle is based on the average perception rating, does that mean an occasionally an enemy will detect me even though our circles are not touching? That could lead to some frustrated cries of "Bullshit!" from players, I imagine. Actually I'm a bit curious why you wouldn't include lighting levels with this system. It seems very simple: stand in a dark spot, your circle becomes smaller; stand in a bright spot, it grows. Since the circles give constant feedback to the player, and it makes intuitive sense that hiding in shadows is easier than hiding in broad daylight, it's not like there would be a problem with players not understanding the system or anything. I suppose it's a level design issue? verybad fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:To be fair to that discussion, it was a being discussed whether that mechanic would be intuitive enough for new players to understand or not. What was bad about that discussion was the dickbags trying to shut down all discussion. There were a few people saying something like "huh that's a pretty weird system but alright whatever I don't really care that much", which was then responded to with "ahaha look at these manchild grognards ruining great game design with their stupid awfulness, they're the worst, am I right guys?" On another topic, someone here asked as joke (I think?) if Obsidian had any in-game lore explanation for why there's only two ring slots. Since I just read about Dark Souls II having four ring slots, it got me thinking about this stuff... Why aren't adventurers covered from head to toe in multiple protectice charms and such? (Obvious game balance reasons aside.) I think it's actually quite a fun and compelling image, I think. A system like that could be balanced around maybe having magic items only have active effects, so you won't necessarily become more powerful by acquiring more magical items, you simply have more options. This would also work to minimize the problem of "trash" vendor loot: an item might only be of limited use, but since it doesn't actually cost you nothing to wear it and maybe use it if you ever get a chance, might as well hang on to it. Now, there could be some powerful artefacts with passive effects and they could be limited to wearing only one, or perhaps few. They could be like the One Ring, or a Lich's phylactery: they contain the essence of their creator, they're possibly sentient and are capable of overpowering their wearer -- having one demigod or an ancient sorcerer's soul whispering in your ear is enough, you probably don't want to risk two! Imagine the constant bickering and passive aggression snipes of two long dead rival wizards filling your every waking moment... ugh. So, hey, not really related PoE, but somewhat topical I guess. verybad fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:I think the most irritating aspects of the IE games are pinned down in these old articles: The most irritating aspects of the IE games are the somewhat obscure nomenclature and that you don't get level-ups often enough? Those really sound like pet peeves to me. As an aside, what makes you appreciate the Fallout games' mechanics more than those of the IE games? They're well-made RPGs in the sense that there's good writing, interesting locales, compelling characters and fun scenarios in them, but the combat mechanics are dreadfully dull, the system is poorly balanced and has a lot of seemingly complex subsystems that only serve to obfuscate how stuff works in the game. For example, there's three different armor stats (+ different damage types, of course) that all basically have the same function: reducing the amount of damage you take, but in a slightly different manner. This could be relevant, I suppose, except that the different armors are so clearly tiered into the Worst->Bad->Good->Best progression that none of those stats matter, one type of armor is always better than another. And what about level-ups? Whee, I spent 15 skillpoints on Science and went from 30 to 45% -- ok, cool, what does that mean? gently caress if I know. (Perks were cool, though.) I mean, I guess the SPECIAL system is "better", if by "better" you mean there's no PnP nomenclature and the basic mechanic roll is a percentage roll instead of a d20, but that's a really shallow understanding of both systems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Do rangers get their ranged bonuses when they're using weapons with long reach (ie. long spears and such) or just with actual ranged weapons? Are there reach weapons in the game anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
May I ask why? If you included the pike as well, it seems to me that all the traditional hunting weapons would be included in the ranger's arsenal. At a glance, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a balance problem or anything, and would keep the class flavor intact. Are pikes penalized in melee range vs regular melee weapons, except by having suboptimal stats in exchange for extra range? bathroom sounds posted:Is dual wielding (or fighting melee) somehow less practical than taming a wild beast to tank for you while you shoot around it with a bow? Is the WoW Hunter archetype somehow more authentically "ranger" than the D&D Ranger class? Woodsman/expert dual-wielder (weapon style probably mostly associated with dueling) is a rather confused archetype in comparison to a hunter with a bow and a pet. verybad fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Pikes were about 15 feet long. Traditional hunting weapon? According to wikipedia, pikes were anything from 10-25' long. Here's a hunting spear, courtesy of wikipedia:  Seems quite long.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Halberds are about 6' long and have spike on the end, an axehead and a hook. That said, 'polearms with weird heads' is a big confusing mess of weird nomenclature you do not want to wander into.Mr.Pibbleton posted:tldr: Some random Alaskan thinks rangers are ok. I don't know anyone who doesn't use two hands in a fight. Except maybe people who have only one hand, but I don't know anyone like that so hey.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Mr.Pibbleton posted:I never said anything about two hands, just two weapons at the same time. Grabbing someone and hitting them with something is a time honored tradition of all peoples everywhere. Pray tell, do these alaskan rangers dual wield pistols or do they prefer large caliber rifles, for fighting bears? Actually, re-reading your post (over and over again), I'm not actually sure what you're even saying about using two weapons at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:My problem isn't with rangers using bows specifically, it's the combination of an archer and a pet that will presumably be drawing aggro a la the Hunter in World of Warcraft. WoW owns that concept now; has since 2001. Whether or not melee tanking "animal companions" were a Thing that predated WoW is moot. Here's some WoW derivative art for you:  cave paintings can be a bit unclear so that's a hunter with a bow and a dog verybad fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Gonna go ahead and wager that 90% of PoE's players will not have been influenced by ancient video games or recognize "archer + animal companion" as anything but a WoWism. That's an awful cynical view, thinking that people won't recognize a concept more ancient than the concept of having a concept.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Parrying is pretty twitched based and rolling can be too, but yeah it's perfectly possible to play without those mechanics and succeed pretty much on good tactical decision-making and strong build planning, they really made a conscious effort in Dark Souls to let you legitimately play the game in multiple styles. The enemy attack animations generally have fairly long wind-ups. If you're trying to dodge or parry them reflexively, you're most likely going to mistime the parry/roll and get punished. It's not about having fast enough reflexes, it's about being able to read the enemy movements correctly and responding appropriately, with the right timing. Dark Souls is twitch-based only in the sense that you do need to be able to input commands accurately and precisely in response to predictable enemy behaviour. Fast reaction times are not necessary, and impatience will be punished.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Statistically Chromatic Orb is one of the best death spells in BG2 because it might be -6 to save, but you can memorize enough you end up having a better chance than a few scant casts of higher level spells. Especially if combined with Greater Malison. Eh, spell memorization limits were more of a strategic than a tactical concern. You were limited to a one spell per round so while a chromatic orb might eventually succeed, in a challenging fight, trying to get lucky with something like that was usually a wasted spellcasting round. Primary resource in combat is actions, and that's why tactics like this don't really work all that well (and lead to complaints about how random dicerolls turn these games into reloadfests). But this talk about death spells got me thinking: BG2 had a pretty cool VFX for whenever something was killed by an instant death effect, but in general these games were pretty poor in the visual feedback department. That is to say, it was pretty hard to tell what was actually happening in a fight without following the combat log. Is this an issue PoE is going to address? Like, say, if my party is facing an enemy with high armor rating, can I figure it out by just looking at the fight for a while (enemy looks armored, it's apparent from the VFX that even strong attacks are turned into glancing blows, etc), or do I have to look at the combat log/tooltips to figure out that, no, I'm not just rolling low, this guy is pretty loving tanky?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
zedprime posted:In a party based game like this, if you are distracted enough to be looking for passive effects then there is probably a worse problem with the amount of active stuff to do. It's actually a really loving good thing in a party-based game like this that not every unit requires the same amount of micro. You don't want every character to have six billion active abilities, because a. it gets tedious to micromanage all those abilities and b. it's just a party of 6 wizards at that point so why even have different classes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:"Active abilities = wizard" is really dumb and that kind of mindset is partially responsible for fighter characters so often being boring to play in games both video and tabletop, so... your opinion is bad, I guess I'm saying. Woosh. The point wasn't that fighters should be passive and wizards active, the point was that there should be passive classes and there should be active classes because that's (one of the) ways to differentiate gameplay between classes, and if you don't do that they're all going to end up feeling the same. Now, there's different types of micro, too, so like in a completely hypotethical example of a game, maybe WARRIORMAN class is focused on strategic positioning and static defenses, while MAGICDUDES rely on choosing correct abilities with the right timing, and SNEAKYTHIEVES exploit high mobility to gain short-term tactical advantages with abilities that require very precise positioning. All require micromanagement to perform optimally, but the tempo and style of play is different for each class and that's a good thing. There's a crucial difference between a tabletop RPG and a tactical CRPG with quasi-RTS type combat: you control a party, not a single character, and the game's flow should be designed around that fact. An unit with low-micro requirements may end up feeling boring, but that's a better result than having the entire game feel like boring because every character feels the same and/or there's too much stuff to do, so even resolving a simple combat encounter is a chore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:People forget that as well as narrative, Obsidian is really good at systems design. So I'm guessing there is a bit of involvement on the balance and abilities design in order to put it over World of Tanks. They are? Which Obsidian game do you think showcases this strenght? Like, don't get me wrong, whenever ropekid posts something about game design it gets my dick hard same as the next guy, and I'm expecting PoE to be a really super duper good game with fun gameplay and deep mechanics but... that's not an expectation that's based on past experience and facts and poo poo. In terms of general gameplay mechanics, all the Obsidian titles I've played have been pretty "bleh" -- now, there's always been explanations for that (they're working off a previous developer's bad design, publishers meddling, etc) but just because there are valid excuses for past failures doesn't mean that they're actually really good at the thing they keep failing at! They can certainly talk the talk, but it still remains to be seen if they can walk the walk, you know? Okay, so I haven't played Stick of Truth/Dungeon Siege 3, and maybe those titles have really strong gameplay, so feel free to correct me -- I don't think we've yet seen an Obsidian developed game where you can say that "This is a Really Good Game". We've seen a lot "Good Game with Flaws" and I think they're capable of doing much better but it's a bit early to sing their praises before there's proof of that. Woah that's a lot of buts. Butts. haha
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
AnonSpore posted:It'd really suck to be playing this game like you played and enjoyed every other game, then halfway through the story your party decides you're not playing the game right and calls you a sociopath. Why would that (necessarily) suck? I don't think the game should punish you for playing a manipulative sociopath, but it would be pretty sweet if the game actually recognized that the "standard" optimal path IS playing a manipulative sociopath. For example, say if by gaming the NPC reactions, you could make your whole party fanatically loyal to you. Wouldn't it actually be kind of cool, if afterwards, a character would point out that you're using them for your own ends, AND that they're totally fine with that because they're STILL fanatically loyal to you/your cause? You're not being punished, you're being recognized! verybad fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:Well that is all up to the writers and how they write the characters, you can't really use characters from other games as an example. What I'm saying is that if a game has, say, an angel and a devil both as potential party members, I'd find their conflicts a lot more interesting than just having to choose between one and the other. I think you could do and explore plenty of cool things that way if done properly. Representing the great cosmic battle of good and evil as a snarky buddy comedy would be a fairly questionable writing decision.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:You can never truly appreciate how bad the D&D alignment system is until you've sat in on a session with someone who fully commits to a paladin character. Saerilith is as close as you can get without inviting that Mormon kid to join your high school game. She just derails the game completely. It's awe-inspiring. I don't want to defend D&D alignment system too much -- it's a terribly confused mechanic: simultaneously working as a short-hand for personality, as a signifier of one's ethical/moral stance and allegiance in the great cosmic struggle of D&D universe, and as a game mechanic determining the effects of various spells and such -- but that paladin problem you're describing? It's a problem player, not a problem mechanic. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, and a character can take actions that are not strictly in accordance with their current alignment and still remain within that alignment, as long as it describes their actions most consistently of the available alternatives. Paladins are furthermore limited by a code of conduct, but even that can be set aside, except in situations where a paladin would willingly commit an evil act, or would otherwise grossly violate the code (an act that would have to be comparable to willingly committing an evil deed). In the case of such a transgression, the ex-paladin can still atone for his actions and regain the paladin status and powers. So, you know, a chill paladin player can totally let a few things slide in the name of greater good and still be on the up and up. If worst comes worst, he'll just have to act contrite and pony up a few hundred XP for an atonement, no biggie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
AXE COP posted:Paladins work fine if the DM explicitly ignores what the system tells him to do. This does not mean alignment is not poorly designed. I'm not arguing that alignment isn't poorly designed, but the system (well, at least D&D3.5) does not require the DM to ignore it for paladin to be playable. Here's the short version of paladin special rules: 1. Consistently act outside your alignment? Alignment changes, lose paladin-status. Pay 500xp for atonement spell to get back on track. 2. Willingly commit evil acts? You lose paladin-status. Pay 500xp for atonement to get back on track. That's not really a huge deal, is it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
AXE COP posted:Alignment is pretty bad. It serves its purpose but it offers absolutely nothing that other systems don't while leading to a huge range of dumb bullshit (see: orc orphanage scenario). While I don't disagree with the general sentiment, care to elaborate on the orphanage problem?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Murder doesn't stop being evil just because the person you're murdering happens to be evil as well. That's an especially easy call to make in a system of absolute morality... like say the one they have in D&D with all alignments and poo poo.AXE COP posted:Your paladin is perfectly justified in walking through a orc creché, taking each baby out of its crib and decapitating it because they're an Evil race and therefore murdering them is justified 100% of the time. You can even argue he should lose alignment if he doesn't kill them, because he's allowing evil to propagate. No, that's not really accurate, at least for 3.5e Paladin. A paladin's code of conduct requires that they: 1. they respect legitimate authority, 2. act with honor, 3. help those in need, and 4. punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Furthermore, they have to be (Lawful) Good, which means: 1. altruism, 2. respect for life, 3. concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (Lawfulness doesn't really even need to play into this scenario, so I'll just skip that) Killing orphans -- evil or not -- does not meet those criteria. You can try to argue for it through some utilitarian grimdark Greater Good viewpoint, but that's really missing the point of the D&D alignment system by a mile. Like, hey, maybe it really does lead to Greater Good, but it's still Evil in terms of D&D morality, because Good and Evil are defined by immutable cosmic laws in this universe, not by moral philosophers. verybad fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Fish Fry Andy posted:Alignment systems have so many dumb things going for them. They really limit what's possible with characters outside of just making everyone "neutral" or whatever, and let's not get started on the whole "every sentient being born into this race is just always 100% evil," thing You know, just because the game setting designates something as Objectively Evil doesn't mean the characters living in that universe have to agree with that. You want to have an utilitarian philosopher kings, who believe that what they're doing is for the good of the people? Go for it! That'll actually make an interesting character hook, if such a character knows that what they're doing is Evil according to the fundamental laws of their universe (and will be punished for it in the afterlife), but do it anyway because it's the Right Thing To Do. And hey, maybe the PCs agree with that... so they try to help out the Good King by waging a war on the Gods, in order to force them to write new, better laws of morality, according to which people will be judged! etc. Playing a game where all that alignment stuff is actually really thought through can be interesting... or you can just use it as a vague personality descriptor. What you really can't do is the stuff somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, it's just not a very useful tool for that. Which is why it's kind of a bad system, since it's either mostly irrelevant or something that pretty much has to be the primary focus of a campaign setting, or otherwise it just muddies the waters and leads to awkward, tired old bullshit cliches.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 20:06
|
|