Merin
-
Posts
618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Merin
-
-
...yer loose in the head, lad
Bait.
.ne'er once did I say that roleplaying was strategy & tactics, I's said that sound tactics & strategy was part o' roleplayin' yer character...quit creatin' straw man where none was
That's a slight reinterpretation of what you actually said before ...
I remember countless times facing a tough fight, dying and reloading only to pick a new set of spells. So in other words, was that a failure of tactics or a failure to guess correctly?
The IE games basically encouraged meta gaming and not cleverness if you think about it.
...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.
..ye jus' countered yer own point in mid post...
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.
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.
-
2
-
-
I have to go to my tutoring session now and then I need to write my update for tomorrow, so unfortunately this is all I can contribute to the thread for today/tonight.
Thanks for taking the time to try and allay fears and explain things. It is much appreciated!
-
Absolutely. Oh, sweet Joss Whedon, yes this.
I never use potions or consumables because I'm always worried about running out of them.
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.
-
Masochists get their jollies?
Why play games if you just want visual novels?
Straw man.
-
That automatically begs the question Josh, that does the party have a heal spell, no?
Not in the way you're thinking of it.
In either way, since he misused the phrase "begs the question"...
-
just because he says he's been playing for 20 years don't make it true. people may lie on the internet don't you know.
I've been playing D&D for 25 years. I also hate Vancian magic.
I've also been playing D&D for roughly 25 years, and I don't hate Vanican but I've never liked it, and very early on my friends and I in Jr. High devised a spell point system for 2nd ED.
So, yeah, you just house rule.
-
Do you just disagree with the whole concept of managing resources across fights then? I'm curious as to what your stance is on healing potions.
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!
-
In this circumstance, what is good about the experience of walking back to the campsite?
This is the reason why we have fast travel.
Fast travel is one of the evils of recent cRPG.
Oh, for the love of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, it is one of the most blessed things about cRPGs ever.
-
Here is something I would like to hear opinions on. Take the following circumstance, which is not uncommon in the IE games and would be somewhat similar to the KotC "campsite" system in circumstances were you are not locked off from backtracking to a campsite.
* You are in a location where resting is either prohibited or extraordinarily likely to result in an encounter. You do not know the location of the next campsite/safe resting area.
* You have cast many of your spells and the ones that remain are not entirely appropriate for the encounters you are now facing.
* Because you came from an area where you could rest and are not locked in the location, you have a cleared (by you) path back to the area where you can safely rest.
* It will take you three minutes of real time to walk back to the camp, maybe thirty seconds to reconfigure spells, five seconds to rest, and another three minutes of real time to walk back to where you had left off.
* Because you killed everything between you and the campsite, there are no threats between you and the campsite.
In this circumstance, what is good about the experience of walking back to the campsite?
Masochists get their jollies?
-
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.
..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.
rethinkin' tactics & strategies in mid battle in hope's to win said battle cuz the tactics & strategies ya started wit' ain't workin'...part o' roleplayin'...wow; does 1+1 not = 2 in yer world??...dyin' or not, strategizin' & battlefield tactics be certainly a part o' cRPGin', ya know, computer Roleplayin' game...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*
-
Don't do either. Scaling is the devil.
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.
-
QQ about how boobplate wasnt realistic
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
QQ about how boobplate wasnt realistic
Wait... you're a moderator and you posted this?
QQ? Really?
-
Two things I will say:
The Vancian system as it was in the IE games wasn't some super tactical system that rewarded planning and forethought. I barely ever had to change my spell selection.
A Cooldown system feels stupid a lot of the time, like a prolonged slower paced QTE, and there often isn't any attempt to explain what exactly, lorewise, is supposed to be "cooling down" making it really... gamey.
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. 
-
I remember countless times facing a tough fight, dying and reloading only to pick a new set of spells. So in other words, was that a failure of tactics or a failure to guess correctly?
The IE games basically encouraged meta gaming and not cleverness if you think about it.
...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.
-
-
I'm not the person you posted, but for me it's the same reason I post on other gaming forums, or on hockey forums. Not because I think I can sway the developers (or my favorite NHL team's GM) into doing things exactly how I want, but to discuss something I enjoy with people who also enjoy the same thing.
Also, I post my ideas/thoughts on features for PE in hopes the devs might see them and say, "you know, that might work". But I don't post with the belief that they *will* react that way.
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.
-
I'm not brown nosing, I'm making sure noone misses the reality check here. They owe us nothing.
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.Very few games have become better due to cooldowns or level scaling but many of them have become terrible.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.
-
You are certainly entitled to voice your opinion. And it's great (I don't agree really with the OP that much even though he probably meant to calm minds). Just don't overreact before we don't know how it actually works. Which we really, really don't. Expect for making assumptions and comparisons with games these people haven't even worked on.
I have to say 3 things though:
A: The hardcore audience disagrees a lot even about combat in older games. So, should Obsidian really copy 100%?
B: Connected to A actually. Infinity engine games aren't really beloved because of their systems. In fact they are more heavily critizized than most other rpg combat systems. Especially on the codex. (Rightfully IMO, due to the problems arising translating D&D to RTWP) So, I don't really get your first point there.
C It's Sawyer. He's not negative to taking parts of modern game design and you guys know that (and argued in the past about it). Yet, there was still the Deathclaw Quarry. Yet, there was still F:NV. What did you expect?
Thank you.
-
I may well reduce my pledge (not only because of this, but also due to the announcement that level scaling will be included).
And I really don't think that I'm going to be alone if I do --
even the folks that are arguing "in favor" of cooldowns are taking the position that "Cooldown can play just like Vancian magic (but without some poorly defined drawback), so don't panic." If the primary argument in favor of feature X is that it plays more or less the same as feature Y, then something is seriously wrong with the gameplay design.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.
-
3
-
Overreaction theater!
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
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?