Well, now I have been officially introduced into the absolute dumpster fire that is 5e. Is this really what they devolved the ruleset into or are Larian taking Autistic Liberties?
Well, now I have been officially introduced into the absolute dumpster fire that is 5e. Is this really what they devolved the ruleset into or are Larian taking Autistic Liberties?
But it's a gamble [the first time]. You do not know what may be lurking there... and in a few cases there actually is a fairly powerful threat; more than one targeted ambush.
Effortless exploration is not bad; exploration without encounter is the only way that I could tolerate and somewhat enjoy playing FO3; I just had to avoid the awful (mood damaging) NPCs in that game. I wandered the wastes for what little appreciation of their work could be had from that game.
Poor mechanics is what's bad; good mechanics (all them Grotesque numbers) matter more than anything else in a game—they are the cake upon which the sugary icing levelly sits.
How exactly do you mean? If you mean via the PC's detection skill... This is an RPG series. The player is running a party of characters—it's them that are there in situ, detection of traps and concealment is up to their own personal ability to detect such (as it should be, in an RPG); not the ability of the player. The player is not a member of the party, and should have no tangible contribution... cannot warn them of anything, cannot heal them if they should all fall unconscious.
Its an autistic larianesque(?) 5e. Solasta is a lot more faithful systemwise despite not having the license of the setting.Well, now I have been officially introduced into the absolute dumpster fire that is 5e. Is this really what they devolved the ruleset into or are Larian taking Autistic Liberties?
This is what happens when you get sloppy with the gatekeeping.
Not at all; it's a core feature. I would not take any RPG seriously that was not bound by the PCs limitations.
In combat, with Baldur's Gate and Fallout both, for instance, the player (as stated previously) extrapolates who the character's target would be, but it is the PC who then does their best to attack—and possibly fail; the character does the aiming; their stats influence the quality of their actions. The player cannot advise them to shoot more accurately, or to move faster. This is at it should be for any RPG.
Not everyone has played those two titles. Arx manages to be a great RPG despite its first person handicap. The skills of the game do matter, and affect everything (including combat skills). FPP is generally detrimental to roleplaying games, because it actively substitutes the player for the PC... it then skirts the realm of reactive simulation.
)
Not at all; It's a core feature. I would not take any RPG seriously that was not bound by the PCs limitations.
In combat, with Baldur's Gate and Fallout both, for instance, the player (as stated previously) extrapolates who the character's target would be, but it is the PC who then does their best to attack—and possibly fail; the character does the aiming; their stats influence the quality of their actions. The player cannot advise them to shoot more accurately, or to move faster. This is at it should be for any RPG.
I liked that the BG series even takes Infravision into account, where it's only available to the player when the active character possesses it; (quite a shame that someone on the team made it a toggle to disregard this).
Not everyone has played those two titles. Arx manages to be a great RPG despite its first person handicap. The skills of the game do matter, and affect everything (including combat skills). FPP is generally detrimental to roleplaying games, because it actively substitutes the player for the PC... it then skirts the realm of reactive simulation.
Arx suffers the same problem as Witcher 2 (though Witcher 1 does not), that of the player hindrance. Geralt is an experienced swordsman, but the naive combat of the 2nd & 3rd games allow the player's [un]familiarity and playing skill to determine Geralt's minute actions; which means that he swings wildly at trees, barrels, perhaps where the enemy used to be, or at nothing in particular... until the player masters a level of control. This is out of character for a veteran monster hunter, and lets Geralt be defeated by common villagers.
RPGs should do the exact opposite of this. It's why one would roleplay a character like Bruce Lee—because of his martial arts skill; he would know better how to attack, than the player could. But imagine playing with entirely manual control over his movements; the player's mistakes become his, and the reverse... if the player were better, then he would be fighting better than he ought to be able.
(This is the case in FO3, where the player can compensate for the PCs inability to aim; making shots they shouldn't be able to manage.
The player doesn't have a role.
And yet... these are all options available to the PC in the moment. The player should be roleplaying the PC during combat, and effecting their probable actions.
That is very subjective. Tell me... When playing Baldur's Gate, if you had a thief in the party would they case and rob the Inns? If yes, did your Paladin (or whole party) tag along to protect the thief (and win any battles against the victims) ?
Ideally yes, and there are plenty of games that offer an auto-resolve for combat, but the limitation here is with the developers, and the scope of their design. They cannot account for all of the dynamic possibilities, and on-the-fly decision changes. What auto-combat system would cancel a decided action in favor of another based on the changing situation. (In BG/NWN, the combatants have their own internal round clock —under the hood—, and they act whenever their option arises; many of the displayed (interim) attacks are fake, only the real ones do damage.)
It's not so much lost in translation, as omitted for sloth or lack of time, or funds. A computer roleplaying game could take everything into account if they wished. The game could determine a missed attack not by random roll, but by actual collision event with a small stone in the path of the attacker's footfall; it all depends upon how deep they want to dive into it. It could be shown; animated. The PC could miss, and be shown to stumble on the rock—but it would not necessarily have to; they could just use it internally instead of randomized success... Most players wouldn't notice or care, but the results might be marginally more realistic in the long run. Modern players freak out when their character's miss—seemingly at random; especially if shown 95%—'cause they assume that it can't happen twice in a row.
There's builds tagged with 'editor' on gogdb that aren't public, most likely will get released as dos1 and dos2 had a devkit available.
This is one of the many reasons as to why I consider Fallout to be the best representation of an RPG in digital form. You and the Vault Dweller are one, you are roleplaying as the Vault Dweller.The player doesn't have a role.
And yet... these are all options available to the PC in the moment. The player should be roleplaying the PC during combat, and effecting their probable actions.
For instance... Take Fallout: If the PC was engaged by a few opponents and Dogmeat was fighting some distance [many hex] away, and just got kicked unconscious... would the PC abandon their close quarter gun fight to go [physically] beat the hell out of the dude who just kicked his dog? Would Dogmeat's being alive or dead at the time make a difference—to them? Would he think shooting them from a distance was not enough? Would they ignore incoming attacks so long as they got to strike the dude in the groin with a sledgehammer, for kicking his dog? Or would they be pragmatic and level headed about it, and systematically eliminate their opponents one by one according to the greatest threat first? (...and allowing the dude to get away with it.)
Depends on the mentality of the character, no?
That is very subjective. Tell me... When playing Baldur's Gate, if you had a thief in the party would they case and rob the Inns? If yes, did your Paladin (or whole party) tag along to protect the thief (and win any battles against the victims) ?
Ideally yes, and there are plenty of games that offer an auto-resolve for combat, but the limitation here is with the developers, and the scope of their design. They cannot account for all of the dynamic possibilities, and on-the-fly decision changes. What auto-combat system would cancel a decided action in favor of another based on the changing situation. (In BG/NWN, the combatants have their own internal round clock —under the hood—, and they act whenever their option arises; many of the displayed (interim) attacks are fake, only the real ones do damage.)
No, the combatants would be evaluated by the numbers, bereft of all context. As for enjoying it—sure. That is the way combat in Wasteland, and Bard's Tale both worked.
It's not so much lost in translation, as omitted for sloth or lack of time, or funds. A computer roleplaying game could take everything into account if they wished. The game could determine a missed attack not by random roll, but by actual collision event with a small stone in the path of the attacker's footfall; it all depends upon how deep they want to dive into it. It could be shown; animated. The PC could miss, and be shown to stumble on the rock—but it would not necessarily have to; they could just use it internally instead of randomized success... Most players wouldn't notice or care, but the results might be marginally more realistic in the long run. Modern players freak out when their character's miss—seemingly at random; especially if shown 95%—'cause they assume that it can't happen twice in a row.
The player doesn't have a role.
And yet... these are all options available to the PC in the moment. The player should be roleplaying the PC during combat, and effecting their probable actions.
For instance... Take Fallout: If the PC was engaged by a few opponents and Dogmeat was fighting some distance [many hex] away, and just got kicked unconscious... would the PC abandon their close quarter gun fight to go [physically] beat the hell out of the dude who just kicked his dog? Would Dogmeat's being alive or dead at the time make a difference—to them? Would he think shooting them from a distance was not enough? Would they ignore incoming attacks so long as they got to strike the dude in the groin with a sledgehammer, for kicking his dog? Or would they be pragmatic and level headed about it, and systematically eliminate their opponents one by one according to the greatest threat first? (...and allowing the dude to get away with it.)
Depends on the mentality of the character, no?
That is very subjective. Tell me... When playing Baldur's Gate, if you had a thief in the party would they case and rob the Inns? If yes, did your Paladin (or whole party) tag along to protect the thief (and win any battles against the victims) ?
Ideally yes, and there are plenty of games that offer an auto-resolve for combat, but the limitation here is with the developers, and the scope of their design. They cannot account for all of the dynamic possibilities, and on-the-fly decision changes. What auto-combat system would cancel a decided action in favor of another based on the changing situation. (In BG/NWN, the combatants have their own internal round clock —under the hood—, and they act whenever their option arises; many of the displayed (interim) attacks are fake, only the real ones do damage.)
No the combatants would be evaluated by the numbers, bereft of all context. As for enjoying it—sure. That is the way combat in Wasteland, and Bard's Tale both worked.
It's not so much lost in translation, as omitted for sloth or lack of funds. A computer roleplaying game could take everything into account if they wished. The game could determine a missed attack not by random roll, but by actual collision event with a small stone in the path of the attacker's footfall; it all depends upon how deep they want to dive into it. It could be shown; animated. The PC could miss, and be shown to stumble on the rock—but it would not necessarily have to; they could just use it internally instead of randomized success... Most players wouldn't notice or care, but the results might be marginally more realistic in the long run.
Your companions are supposed to represent the other player characters which is the argument against full party control.
1- ...is simply not true; one can roleplay more than one character at a time.
...And these are relevant to what [exactly]?
No. It would have substituted the character's perception for the player's. Aside from no longer having the character handle their own perception, it would force the player to rely on their own—and so foremost they would never be roleplaying a character less perceptive than themselves, and if their own vision is poor, never a character more perceptive than themselves.
Sorry man, but this is true in any possibile reality. You can theoretically roleplay an entire army, but it is not how AD&D (or any other P&P system, for that matter) works: if you are not the DM, in AD&D 1 player = 1 character; in BG 1 player = 1 to 6 characters. Totally different game experiences.
And still, BG is a game intended to be played as a single-player party-based RPG, which - in tabletop terms - is two times an oxymoron.
I've treated the dialogues in a different point. For lack of better definitions "non-combat interactions are actions that in tabletop RPGs are the norm but in a CPRGs are so rare that many CPRG veterans with zero experience at the table don't even know they exist" :D.
Not remotely close to what happens at the table. In a P&P RPG I'm allowed to say literally everything I want. In BG I don't have even 1/1,000,000 of the options necessary to do that.
5- No it's not. I mentioned this before, if you recall. In implementing the system, the developers give each combatant an internal round timer that holds them to their listed attacks per round; they only attack, use items, or cast spells when their time to act comes around. This is why there is a delay between actions and the user clicks that select them; also the combat log should make this clear.
Also.... What do you think turn based is?—it's not for sake of the delay. In turn based combat the player(s) are afforded the foreknowledge of what has happened in the round before their turn—before they decide what to do; this is not always possible in realtime combat. But it is in Baldur's Gate, because the player can stop the action and inspect the screen and the combat log at anytime.
In BG 1&2 the player can not only pause the event at every action, but can even set the game to pause on every round.
These are unfaithful adaptations of the ruleset as well. The only difference with the detection is that you are so used to them that you don't even noticed their existence.
If would have been like substituting the tactical thinking of the player to the tactical thinking of the party leader, then. What a horrible thing to do :D...
