Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Areyar]

heh.
yes virgin blood is a far more rare commodity ... although I heard some rumours about nerds.

black and white thinking in games is easy: things need to be simplified and thus become polarized.
In most paper-RPGs there is the option of multi-classing although that leads to a great handicap of being good at nothing and mediocre at some. Also a player's roleplaying can play a far greater role than class with a good Master. (no pun intended)

[Neonivek]

Baby tears are a bad example for a rare resource. You punch a baby, you get baby tears.

It is rare simply because getting it in sufficiant quantities is nearly impossible as well as the number of people willing to get such is also rare.

Sure you can punch a baby, but how much tear are you going to get? Definately not a bottle or a couldron worth like a Wizard could use.

[Captain Failmore]

heh.
yes virgin blood is a far more rare commodity ... although I heard some rumours about nerds.

black and white thinking in games is easy: things need to be simplified and thus become polarized.
In most paper-RPGs there is the option of multi-classing although that leads to a great handicap of being good at nothing and mediocre at some. Also a player's roleplaying can play a far greater role than class with a good Master. (no pun intended)

This much is true. Overly complex rules and statistics make for boring games when you're doing all of your math by hand. Player actions are going to take too long to resolve if quantifying the outcome requires a degree in calculus and a mathematical formula that can only be fit in its entirety on a billboard. Especially when dealing with traditional pen and paper war-games, you're going to want your rules and statistics to be as simple and to the point as possible. Fortunately for us, we have computers now that can do a lot of that math for us and make possible game mechanics that couldn't exist - or would at least be extremely inconvenient - in pen and paper games.

That's why these class balance issues really astonish me, because they're actually more persistent in video games. You'd think video game developers would be a bit more progressive than that, but unfortunately that just isn't the case. Apparently Japan's cure for the Warrior's Malaise has been to just give everyone magic. Meanwhile, the MMOG-saturated western market continues to recite the tireless mantra of 'Tank-Nuke-Heal'. (For the record, being the tank is extremely fucking boring and is not an enviable occupation for any would-be hero. The same goes for being the healer, and on top of that it's all your fault if the party dies.)

[zagibu]

There is more that astonishes me. Gameplay is also usually very simplistic in so-called "RPGs": you just kill stuff. I don't see much use for well-defined and interesting classes, in such a game, because ultimately, it doesn't matter what animation plays when you click the kill button.

[Granite26]

There is more that astonishes me. Gameplay is also usually very simplistic in so-called "RPGs": you just kill stuff. I don't see much use for well-defined and interesting classes, in such a game, because ultimately, it doesn't matter what animation plays when you click the kill button.

The blog over on 8bit theater rips on this pretty hard in terms of conversation/morality choices.  You choose between A: Saintly, B: Ambivilent, and C:Demonic.

Especially when Saintly is inevitably the most rewarding option.  (So what if 'Saintly' takes more 'work'?  The 'work' is the FUN part!)

[Tormy]

There is more that astonishes me. Gameplay is also usually very simplistic in so-called "RPGs": you just kill stuff. I don't see much use for well-defined and interesting classes, in such a game, because ultimately, it doesn't matter what animation plays when you click the kill button.

You obviously never played with The Temple of Elemental Evil for example. 

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I always take demonic.
In fable, i tried hard to be a role model, to be good and just.
I quite quickly gave up aged 23 and promptly married 10 wives, beat them all regularly, and often went on Massacre weekends.
Screw you, molyneux.
In the end I'm still the good gur even though I'm twice as evil as jack of blades.

[Captain Failmore]

There is more that astonishes me. Gameplay is also usually very simplistic in so-called "RPGs": you just kill stuff. I don't see much use for well-defined and interesting classes, in such a game, because ultimately, it doesn't matter what animation plays when you click the kill button.

A more appropriate term for most so called role-playing games would be 'fantasy war-games'. Let's face facts here; adventure games died when the Internet freed walk-through guides from the game magazines and put them on the web, hardly anybody runs MUD games that don't revolve around erotic role-play anymore, and while exploration and intrigue are both fascinating those activities don't represent an actual game-like process. They're plot devices, not game mechanics. When most kids want to sit down and have an 'adventure' what they really want to do is play a war-game. While conflict, strife, and wizards blasting the high hell out of monsters from behind a wall of burly meat shields are all good and fun, they're also the only thing most players and game developers are actually interested in because they provide the player with a game-like activity. It also goes without saying that making higher interaction with the game environment possible is an elaborate and difficult process that can at present only be carried out satisfactorily by a living, breathing game master. These two factors tend to mean that higher interaction is left in the dust, with decision making that affects the outcome of the story reduced to an illusory, deeply polarized free will of the player characters. Meanwhile, if a game developer is feeling especially 'adventurous', they'll throw some out of place logic puzzles into the game, too. Apparently the more your players have to exercise their basic problem solving skills, the more 'adventurous' your game is. (If that's the case, that would make a Rubik's cube the epic of our time.)

The typical role-playing game of today is at best a war-game used as a storytelling medium, which I feel would actually place it in the realm of interactive fiction, not role-playing. Not only that, the role-playing brand is thoughtlessly tacked onto any game with a sword-flailing protagonist on its cover because of the brand's association with the medieval fantasy genre, regardless as to whether or not any remotely sophisticated role-play actually takes place. You'll find that almost no matter what game you're talking about, in publisher lingo 'RPG' actually means 'swords and wizards and shit', even in action titles that present no appreciably complex role-playing opportunities. (I know, semantics is a real bitch and a half.)

[Draco18s]

There is more that astonishes me. Gameplay is also usually very simplistic in so-called "RPGs": you just kill stuff. I don't see much use for well-defined and interesting classes, in such a game, because ultimately, it doesn't matter what animation plays when you click the kill button.

The blog over on 8bit theater rips on this pretty hard in terms of conversation/morality choices.  You choose between A: Saintly, B: Ambivilent, and C:Demonic.

Especially when Saintly is inevitably the most rewarding option.  (So what if 'Saintly' takes more 'work'?  The 'work' is the FUN part!)

You can either be a) Mother Teresa or b) a baby eater.

There needs to be some kind of middle ground....

[Techhead]

Like a baby-eating Mother Theresa?

[Areyar]

more like being a puppy-devouring, kitten hat wearing dwarven alcoholic.

I've historically (yes I'm old) been most engrossed with games where exploration was a game mechanic or at least possible.
Had entire continents mapped out from 7-cities of gold for example.
Also commonly was the party cartographer in paper-RPGs.
...could say I'm a fetishist of mapmaking.
...ugh. I intended to insert an 8-bit nostalgia song here that mentioned that aspect of oldendays gaming. but i lost its location or the maker.
...hey it was made by EA!

[Mel_Vixen]

On Magic from my experiences based on the system TDE4 (or "Why mages are not demigods in RPs") just as example:

So you are an Magican. Nice! You can throw an Fireball. Even Better!
The fireball (or any Hexa-elemental ball) blows an big hole! Total win! 

So far its like any Generic DnD mage.

The Fireball need 1 1/2 Minutes preparation and there is no way to pre-stock one? Bad! The Fireball has the third of the speed of an Arrow and still needs your concentration. Bader! The fireball goes of then it touches something big enough or you loose concentration (with chance to fire back)? Worse! It uses 4/5 of your magical power to be deadly enough. Worst.



I dont know how exactly magic will work but Toady had some statements over the years on this theme maybe someone can collect and put them on the Wiki so we can lift the fog an bit.


How i (want to) see mages in an RPG Group and maybe in DF:

As you see the mage itself is an Brute of mind if it comes to battle magic yes but they are "one-hit-wonders" at best. Even if you play an "Battlemage" you are the weakest part of an fighter party cause your Asp (= Mana) regenerates only at best with an minor part restored per sleepphase. Comeing to think of it any fighter that is 2 levels below you can beat the crap out out of you if he gets nearer then 21 meters cause the fighter has the advantage of being viligiant and has something called Stamina. The second thing are the from by most nordic warriors (and related) beloved throwing axes and any other projectile thinkable that is disturbing your concentration and at worst is deadly.

What use is an guy that can trow Fireballs but only one per 5 days, if you have another guy that can kill 5 enemys per day with an sword? An average archer has many times an much higher range then any destruction spell and by 10-30 Arrows Per second an much higher fire and cripling/killing rate. Normal fighters can take more damage then the avergae Mage too.
 An good startegie and 10 warriors is much more valueable then 5 Mages and no startegie. If i would hve to bet my money goes on the warriors.

So what use have the most mages? They are an Toolbox, an way to help you warriors archers and what not. The mage is mostly the groups healer if you dont have an consecrated or priest with the ability for healing. Apart from that he helps your goons with strength, Nightvison, an elemental wall to save the left flank against zombies for an short time, or an slight wind that disturbs Arrows from the enemy. Mostly the ASP of the mage halfway is gone after such actions.
Outside of fights they are even more useable the it comes to potions artifacts enchantments and many other things.

Potions: Potions are great but have disadvantages. They are like shorttime steroids. Any Asp/manaless Goon can mix one if he knows how but an mage due to his astral powers can make "better" ones. In an fight serving 3 potions of strenght is better then paying precious energy for an spell.

The disadvantages of such behaviour is that like any drugs/medicaments it can Make the user addicted to it if they not have any side effects. The other things are that an potion can go bad, Vials are expensive as well as the  (rare) ingredients,they can break, they take storage places and can be heavy as well as the entire alchemical labour if you are mixing the stuff on the battlefield.


Artefacts: Siegfried had Nothung, Arthur Excalibur, the Hobbits theyr Elbian coats. Artefacts are made from pure win ... as long the number and/or power of Artefacts is limited. Artefacts are useless if anyone has an magical superscharp sword and that is an general problem of many RPs.
What use has carrying an mage with you if all you need him for is imprinted on one or another scroll, trinket, weapon etc. Just let the mage stay at home an produce more of this wonderful stuff.

Artefacts should be range from fast to do one use "scrolls" up to yearlong projects with finding ingredients, star constellations, accumulating power, the preparing your place there you do create the artefact etc.

The ways to deal with artefacts are different. From the steampunkish worlds from the MTG Novels (Mirrodin cricle, Artifacts circle, Brothers war) with an Artefacts industries and magical industrialisation over to "no artefacts" worlds.

The influx of artefacts in df can be both if toady programs it with mod-able values. The artefacts should not have only advantages or if only very restricted ones like "Steelfist, the Ban-hammer of unlifing" doubles his damage against undead but only works in serene Biomes and places with the right spheres.
The disadvantages for Potions can, depending on the artefact, work for the here too. We could tell that "Spell-matrix-destabilisation" or whatever if the artefact looses power or gets side effects over the time etc. Some artefacts should have an energy drain as long they work. What kind of energy is another question.

An by possession created artefact should have more negative side-streets depending who is possessing the creator.

Enchantments/Rituals: Same things as for Artefacts with some differences.

Enchantments/Rituals should ever be at least slightly affected by the spheres of an place. An temperature lowering enchantment should for example get an penalty for being done on an place with an Fire-sphere.

Long lasting Enchantments should drain energy from somewhere. Say if you have an strong (and surely big) field of healing over your barracks and Quarters your Mages are in general pumped out or you drain it from your unicorn herd. Draining from the sphere of your place (with weakening its effects), the temple-users or right paraphernalia (Alicorn, Dragon scales Imp-bones)should also be possible.

[Granite26]

The typical role-playing game of today is at best a war-game used as a storytelling medium, which I feel would actually place it in the realm of interactive fiction, not role-playing. Not only that, the role-playing brand is thoughtlessly tacked onto any game with a sword-flailing protagonist on its cover because of the brand's association with the medieval fantasy genre, regardless as to whether or not any remotely sophisticated role-play actually takes place. You'll find that almost no matter what game you're talking about, in publisher lingo 'RPG' actually means 'swords and wizards and shit', even in action titles that present no appreciably complex role-playing opportunities. (I know, semantics is a real bitch and a half.)

RPG in a video game usually means 'character level system overshadows player skill', at least to me.

[Krash]

RPG in a video game usually means 'character level system overshadows player skill', at least to me.

By that definition Oblivion isn't an RPG.

Which is entirely correct

[Tormy]

RPG in a video game usually means 'character level system overshadows player skill', at least to me.

Erm, player skill in RPG games? If there is a gaming genre, which doesn't require any "skill", that must be the RPGs. It has nothing to do with the char level system at all imo.
I mean just think, in FPS or RTS games for example you definitely need to be skilled and talented in order to be successful. [CS, CS:S, CoD 1-5, Quake serie, Starcraft 2 etc.]
Now I must admit that you need skill in some MMORPG games also, but only for the PvP part...a good example is WoW. However the PvP in those games has nothing to do with the RPG genre itself. It's just button smashing.