To be quite honest, hiding in the middle of combat always struck me as a bit silly. Especially if the said combat is happening in a tight corridor with not much in the area but the party and the enemies. I would suggest that characters with the sneak skill have a chance to start as hidden, and maybe a chance to hide again on further rounds once they are found; possibly based on how chaotic the battlefield is (and how skilled they are, of course).
True, but quite a few things don't really make sense in "Wizardry" mechanic (like ambush in tight corridors
)... but we still like it.
So we will keep the skill and the mechanic, but we do want to make sure it doesn't get too OP.
I always thought of the tight, grid-based corridors as abstractions of more winding, meandering paths that represent sometimes bigger or smaller spaces in dungeons, so hiding and even combat makes more sense if you don't exactly think of the world as constructed from perfectly cubic corridor pieces
I disagree with you not on what you say, which is obviously correct. I mean, grid maps are always going to be abstractions of the real place, even for something like a building that was carefully built. For instance, a 5x5 room is usually quite large in these games, but that either means that the corridor is way too large or the rooms are way too small. Not only that, but obviously there are things that aren't represented in the map either, otherwise these ancient dungeons are somehow always very clean and clear of any debris. What I disagree with is that this would justify hiding when you are still in a tight corridor. A tight corridor is still a tight corridor; and while some cases might justify the use of the hide ability a couple of times (maybe there is a broken door lying somewhere in the corridor where the thief can hide behind and then sneak when no one is paying attention), it shouldn't be every time.
True, but quite a few things don't really make sense in "Wizardry" mechanic
It's fun so who gives a shit
When you starting thinking with "oh this doesnt make sense in RL" you become like failed idiot Soyer
Sawyer is quite happy in making stuff that doesn't make a lick of sense, such as muscle wizards and whatnot. The point about making sense has nothing to do with balance; and is in fact frequently opposite to it.
At any rate, RPGs should strive to "make sense"; or to be more exact, to maintain some internal logic that guides everything. For instance, you could have things in an RPG that don't make sense in real life, such as elves and trolls or time travel or flying ships or what have you. But these things should follow their own logic and laws. If elves are a kind of fairy and all fairies in your world have some weird taboos they can't at all transgress or they must leave the world, then this should be part of the elf race as well, and could be an interesting aspect to roleplay. In fact, I would say that having the game make sense is a crucial aspect of what a CRPG is. Abstract games like Go or Chess or Poker. These games don't need an internal logic to the rules (even if there was some internal consistency driving how the rules were made at one time).
Most computer games on the other hand aren't abstract like that, but of course have some level of abstraction. Pacman, for instance, has a high level of abstraction to the point that it is hard to know what exactly you are or what you are doing. A game like Ultima 7 on the other hand is much less abstract, though; of course, there are abstractions (such as experience points, attributes, there not being any kind of bathroom in the houses, etc. One important aspect of an RPG is not only avoiding abstractions that muddle up the imaginary world; but also using abstractions that help you create this imaginary world. JRPGs, for instance, frequently sin on this aspect because the attributes they use and their values frequently are absolutely meaningless outside the battle system; which frequently seems to exist completely separated from the narrative aspect as well.
Now, going back to Wizardry's stealth; I don't think there is anything wrong with using it. Certainly, it is much less grating that something like Underrail having emp blasts make robots immune to further emp blasts for a while or broken ribs regenerating in 3 turns. But I see nothing wrong with making the concept less abstract either. In fact, I would argue that it would make the game more of an RPG. Games like Wizardry and Might & Magic frequently did things some way because they were imitating tabletop games (especially Dungeons & Dragons). In tabletop games, having very abstract rules can work very well as long as the DM and the players keep making things more concrete using specific actions rather than playing the game as if it was a board game where all your possible moves are given by the rules. Computer games, on the other hand, don't have this ability, however.
).
