Merin
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Merin
-
Tactics and strategy is part of playing a role-playing game, it's what you, the player, decide. It isn't role-playing. Again, unless you are role-playing a person who is playing a role-playing game... Many, if not most, of my table top role-playing sessions had no combat. So... no role-playing then, by your definition, I guess... Your argument isn't that tactics and strategy is role-playing, then? But... just a few lines back you said... "tactics & strategy is part o' roleplayin' yer character." Do you mean that there's tactics and strategy to deciding how your character would approach decisions... or that you, the player, use tactics and strategy to figure out the best way with your party of 6 characters to win a set fight that you've encountered before and failed at? The former is role-playing, the latter is playing a role-playing game. Yes. That you have the insufferable inability to admit you, at the very least, misunderstood what the person you were disagreeing with was actually saying... or that you misspoke.... or that snark isn't actually a debate tactic of any worth. ---- Seriously, though, you do realize what nikolokolus was saying about dying and reloading and trying a fight again is meta-gaming, right? You do understand that and are just trying to be funny and difficult. Right? -
Bait. That's a slight reinterpretation of what you actually said before ... ...no, what it did was tell ya that ya was wrong in yer tactics an' ta rethink the battle...hence roleplayin'...sorry it were not Diablows-like enuff fer ya... ... where "learning your tactics was wrong" and "learning to rethink the battle", which implies the player, not the character, is growing in his or her tactical skill and that is roleplayin. Straw man is setting up an argument for your opponent that he isn't making because it's easier to shoot down. You are arguing that combat tactics is role-playing. I'm saying it isn't. No straw man there, unless the previous underline part isn't your argument? ---- And there's still this, too... where you were wrong. So, yeah. The disagreement is you saying that tactics and strategy for overcoming a given fight equals role-playing, and I say it doesn't It equals game-playing. Role-playing is making decisions in character. Planning out resource management and how to line up your 6 party members has very, very little role-playing in it.
-
-
I do tend to hoard them too, but the situation which Josh described - finding yourself ill prepared for the challenges you're facing (in terms of spell selection) - is exactly the time when I do use up potions and wands and limited-charge items, in order to compensate. They do make a big difference. I was really brief on my progression on consumables in cRPGs there - it spanned like 20+ years of gaming - but after hoarding out of fear of using them at the wrong time, the actual next step was forgetting I had them to use because I had become so focused on surviving without them. And once I had forgotten in fights that I had that as a resource, and had learned to do without, the next logical progression for me was seeing them as sellable-for-gold only.
-
-
-
-
No. I haven't though a tremendous amount about healing points, but that brings up an interesting parallel resource management behavior in RPGs. I've seen (and talked to) innumerable gamers who say they end games with inventories full of consumables: potions, wands, scrolls, etc. The most commonly cited reason they give is that they don't know when is/isn't a good time to use them. Also, because they often have no idea when they might get more, they don't want to run out. It's sort of the inverse problem of rest spamming. Absolutely. Oh, sweet Joss Whedon, yes this. I never use potions or consumables because I'm always worried about running out of them. I'd honestly forgotten why I'd stopped using consumables in games long ago - but this is it. I was terrified of not having enough or using them at the wrong time and wasting my money on them, so I never got them or just sold them off. That's after I stopped just hoarding them, just in case. So much this. I guess it made me a better player in the sense that I learned to do without. I don't think it was until like DA:O that I actually looked to using them, as healing magic was so weak in combat and you could actually craft the potions... and this was on a second playthrough, as the first one I went to the Dalish Camp last so I didn't have access to elf roots!
-
-
-
..ye jus' countered yer own point in mid post... Hmmm. My point - (1)your definition of role-playing doesn't hold any water, or that (2)dying in combat doesn't force you to role-play? "you have kind of have to make a new character. If you are role-playing, there's no "redo" button." is roughly the middle of my post. I guess we use that. Point 1: "your definition of role-playing doesn't hold any water" - You posited that having to reload and redo a battle, or, to quote you exactly, "what it did was tell ya that ya was wrong in yer tactics an' ta rethink the battle...hence roleplayin", is role-playing. That, somehow, role-playing means having sound tactics in battle. I say that role-playing means that if your character dies acting in character, he dies (role-playing means acting in character) and you have to make a new one because it isn't role-playing to "redo" a scene... the "there's no 'redo' button" part. Maybe learning tactics in combat is part of playing an RPG, especially an older-style cRPG... but tactics in combat != role-playing. Two different things. I'm fairly certain I didn't counter that point. Maybe you meant - Point 2 - "dying in combat doesn't force you to role-play" This one is just silly. "You have kind of have to make a new character. If you are role-playing, there's no "redo" button." pretty much IS my second point, the point made to reinforce the first point that your definition of role-playing... excuse me, "roleplayin" ... isn't sound. Ignoring the striked-out part, I think here we have that the sign that you don't actually mean "role-playing" but "playing an RPG"... which really are not the same thing. 1+1 = 2 in my world. Unfortunately for me 1 is one and it looks like for you 1 = arbitrary opinion. You ask a hundred role-players what role-playing is, you'll get dozens of different answers... but I seriously doubt you'd reach a consensus that summarizes as "tactics and strategy in combat." And on this we both agree.
-
Great update. Looking forward to hearing more of the music for Project Eternity! *downloads and adds the music to his Fantasy playlist to listen to whilst writing*
-
I disagree. Like almost anything, it depends on how it is implemented. I think that Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning did it fairly well... something along those lines (each are has a given range of difficulty, and how powerful the PC is when in said areas determines where on that scale the challenge level is set.) It's what a DM would do in a table top game, and anything that can make the game mechanics try and emulate that is good. Of course the concern is reaching max level as a maximum munchkinned character and still finding a sole sugar ant to be a challenge in combat. That's the extreme. Extremes, however, are bad places to argue from.
-
Wait... you're a moderator and you posted this? QQ? Really? Whats me being a mod have to do with anything? Do you think we are employees of Obsidian? Or we shouldnt be allowed to post our opinions? I'm sorry - I guess I'm placing too high a standard on being a moderator. I would think a moderator would be one seeking to stay largely agnostic on post content outside of breaking forum rules, and would be someone who, at best, encourages discussion. Describing anyone stating their opinions as "QQ"ing just, well, seems both juvenile and un-moderator-like. It has nothing to do with your given opinion a subject. It has to do with etiquette, decorum and leading by example.
-
I want to role-play the character. Ideally I make the character, decide said character's personality and skills, and make in-game decisions based on what I think said character would try, want to try, etc. I want the game mechanics to look at the character I build and somehow judge the effectiveness of my character's actions based on the statistics of my character. The only real weight of success I want on my shoulders is if I'm telling my character to do the things that fit my character concept. If "succeeding" or "winning" are important enough to me, it behooves me to pick a character concept and build that is viable to "succeed" or "win." I hope that adequately explains my stance of picking "mostly based on character skill, with influence from player skills"... I'd almost pick the last option, except I cannot divorce myself from the fact that in choosing my characters personality and stats I am having at least a significant influence on how successful the character will be at tasks.
-
-
It really wasn't. I mean, I cut my teeth on endless plays of SSI Gold Box D&D games, so I had mage spell lists down pat well before the first IE game came out.... so it's possible I was "just that experienced"... but my dislike of Vancian has nothing to do with it being tactically useful. In my experiences it wasn't. It's just a very convoluted way of getting to specialize your character for some people, and for others to exploit what turns out to be "the most effective build" syndrome. My dislike is thematic - it makes no sense to me, the whole mechanism of memorization, of fire and forget spells. I can live with it. I'd almost rather had any other possible magic system. My reloads in BG2 were from perma-death via one spell in certain combats - and from trying to beat Firkraag too early.
-
...no, what it did was tell ya that ya was wrong in yer tactics an' ta rethink the battle...hence roleplayin'...sorry it were not Diablows-like enuff fer ya... Uhm, I don't think your definition of role-playing holds any water. If you die in the game, and you are role-playing... you kind of have to make a new character. If you are role-playing, there's no "redo" button. What it forces you to do isn't role-playing... it forces you to rethink tactics. Perhaps even strategies. But tactics != role-playing.... unless you are meta-role-playing a gamer who is trying over and over against to win a game's combat.
-
Bad poll is bad.
-
I would say that in a Kickstarter project where there's a direct relation between our happiness and the amount of money Obsidian gets to make their game, the chances of them reacting are much higher. that's the problem. I don't want them to react too much to us. The simple fact is this: they know more about making games than we do. I want them to trust their own judgement over ours. I'll just let ogrezilla answer for me.
-
This is a Kickstarter, man. They owe us everything. We're not investors. We aren't putting money into something to have control over it. We are pledgers. Donators. Because you pledge or donate to NPR you don't get to have a say about the programming. The best you can do is pick when you pledge, showing support for certain shows. The same applies here - the best you can do is pledge to support after a certain feature or update is announced to show an overall like of something, but even that is drowned out in the noise of general pledges (as, too, is the "pledge during a given show" for NPR is.) You are not the publisher. You are not the investor. The only say you have is whether you donate and how much you choose to donate. That's it. You want more control - start your own development team.
-
More games had level scaling than some people seem to realize. And many well implemented systems people don't even notice in order to judge if it contributed or not. That's the curse of subtlety. Nuance is often lost on most people.
-
This thread will just get closed or merged. Post your comment in an existing thread that is reacting to the word "cool down" being uttered in a non-negative way. EDIT - and then the thread does get merged and my post looks almost as silly as all the "oh, no, WOW cool down spamming!" now look.
-
Thank you.
-
I'd say many of them are just trying to calm people like you, make you see how we don't know what cool downs means yet and that it could be very similar to what you want. I've not hatred of vancian, but I'd rather not have it. I've no love of cool downs, I can live with them. Again, everyone who was expecting D&D 3E - you are going to be very disappointed. Brace for it.
