is there a difference between rpg and fps anymore?

[alanschu]

That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

 

So I should not play a Wizard... because I cant cast magic In real Life?

 

I should not Play a Rogue, because I cant really hot wire a car?

 

I thought we were playing games and exercising our imaginations and creativity here... sorry about that.

 

You can't seriously be that daft. Talk about taking things way too literally, especially considering the rest of Hell Kitty's post.

 

Hell Kitty is talking about your skills as a game player, and the skills of the character. For example, a classic point of a contradiction was in Morrowind, when you could shoot someone with a bow and arrow point blank, but then your character's skill determined after the fact whether or not it actually was a hit.

 

I can't really shoot a compound longbow, but if my skill as a player has me shoot an arrow (not a real arrow, but one in a video game, by using a mouse or some other form of input) and I see that arrow hit someone, but some bizarro mechanic says "nope, your skill wasn't good enough" then that's not a good thing.

[Sand]

That is why I prefer NWN2 combat system over Oblivion's, though Oblivion's is better than Morrowind because of that scenerio you just described, Alanschu.

[Mortis Nai]

That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

 

So I should not play a Wizard... because I cant cast magic In real Life?

 

I should not Play a Rogue, because I cant really hot wire a car?

 

I thought we were playing games and exercising our imaginations and creativity here... sorry about that.

 

You can't seriously be that daft. Talk about taking things way too literally, especially considering the rest of Hell Kitty's post.

 

Hell Kitty is talking about your skills as a game player, and the skills of the character. For example, a classic point of a contradiction was in Morrowind, when you could shoot someone with a bow and arrow point blank, but then your character's skill determined after the fact whether or not it actually was a hit.

 

I can't really shoot a compound longbow, but if my skill as a player has me shoot an arrow (not a real arrow, but one in a video game, by using a mouse or some other form of input) and I see that arrow hit someone, but some bizarro mechanic says "nope, your skill wasn't good enough" then that's not a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can't seriously be that daft, as Its a standard system for balancing FPS Games.

 

Day of Defeat Source for example, has the same Mechanic, Certain Weapons have a different amount of -Accuracy so depending upon the weapon used determines just how accurate your shot is... even if you have the cross hairs directly on the other player.

 

In TES they simply link that mechanic to your characters skill with the weapon so its even more noticeable.

 

So even in the precious FPS Genera "the players skills and the character skills contradict each other.."

Edited December 28, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Tale]

That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

 

So I should not play a Wizard... because I cant cast magic In real Life?

 

I should not Play a Rogue, because I cant really hot wire a car?

 

I thought we were playing games and exercising our imaginations and creativity here... sorry about that.

 

You can't seriously be that daft. Talk about taking things way too literally, especially considering the rest of Hell Kitty's post.

 

Hell Kitty is talking about your skills as a game player, and the skills of the character. For example, a classic point of a contradiction was in Morrowind, when you could shoot someone with a bow and arrow point blank, but then your character's skill determined after the fact whether or not it actually was a hit.

 

I can't really shoot a compound longbow, but if my skill as a player has me shoot an arrow (not a real arrow, but one in a video game, by using a mouse or some other form of input) and I see that arrow hit someone, but some bizarro mechanic says "nope, your skill wasn't good enough" then that's not a good thing.

 

That's because you're looking at RPGs as action games, not as what they are, storytelling games. The goal isn't "to beat the enemy," though that's what many CRPG developers turn it in to. The goal is to "see what happens." Win or lose, either is good. The character is just one you play, much like an actor, and you improv his actions, using the rules to determine the outcomes. And the character can die, it's okay when he loses, it just plays the drama along.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Tale

[Mortis Nai]

That's because you're looking at RPGs as action games, not as what they are, storytelling games.  The goal isn't "to beat the enemy," though that's what many CRPG developers turn it in to.  The goal is to "see what happens."  Win or lose, either is good.  The character is just one you play, much like an actor, and you improv his actions, using the rules to determine the outcomes.  And the character can die, it's okay when he loses, it just plays the drama along.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a god!

 

Thank you... I was beginning to think I was drowning in munchkins and that the RPG genera was dead.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Sand]

Its not dead. Its sort of limp at the moment.

[Darque]

munchkins

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's an overused and often misplaced word...

[Mortis Nai]

I use it as it is spelled and described in the Story Tellers Handbook, by White-Wolf Publishing under lists of "Problem Player Types."

[Darque]

Problem player types...

 

Meaning anyone who doesn't agree with you?

[Mortis Nai]

Problem player types...

 

Meaning anyone who doesn't agree with you?     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, the sooner people realise I am always right, the better the world will be for all.

[Darque]

Well, I agree with you.

 

You lead me to believe Silent Hill and Silent Hill 3 were two of the best games ever, and you were right.

[Mortis Nai]

See what I mean!

 

I know all!

 

 

*Looks at the Magic 8-Ball for the next answer.*

 

Edit: Adding a Wiki link to "Munchkin" for definition.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Plano Skywalker]

Ive been secretly thinking of new ways to design RPF gameplay for OEs new alien game,  it requires some major out-of-the box thinking. Since you need to have both the realtime action elements of "Aaargh!" as the Aliens chase you down corridors and in airducts, whilst at the same time implement a tactical squad-based gameplay on top of it that has to have connection to a stats system thats interesting and meaningful

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you are on the right track. I'd like to see skills/feats that your PC can take that increase your ability to manage your squad. If you don't have the feat, you only have a rudimentary set of commands; with the feat, you get more and better commands and so on...

 

I do think that stat-based gameplay (along with stat advancement) is part of the "irreducible core" of what an RPG is but there is no reason this can't be mixed with real-time combat and with a squad-based tactical mechanic.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Do you think it's unreasonable that you can hit a human head-sized target with a pistol at a distance of two metres? Anyone could do that, provided they knew how to mount the gun and fire.

 

I think it's unreasonable that the game gimps the character because he hasn't enough points into a skill but the player can go around that point shortage by way of reflexes. I remember steadying the sniper rifle by forcing the mouse on a circular pattern that did away with most of the wobbling given to portray lack of skill.

 

That also assumes you could sneak up on your target, which was often impossible. And just rushing them was not a very good idea either, especially if they packed shotguns or heavy weapons.

 

In the earlier levels I could easilly do this. Enemies have certain blind spots in their line of sight and general perception, so much that I can be crounching and walking right behind them without them ever noticing me. Not so much in the later levels, but still.

 

All in all, I don't think DX had balance or skill usage issues (save for the lightsaber maybe).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I feel otherwise based on the examples I gave throughout the thread but to each his own.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

People seem to have mistaken the fact that people don't use their reflexes in PnP as some kind of rule, rather than an impossibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's always LARPing, I guess.

[Hell Kitty]

If you want to play FPS Games, there is an entire Genera for that, why is it that people are insisting that other genera's of games morph, merge and have the bastard love children of the FPS Genera?

 

Since when does "an RPG which makes use of the players reflexes is still an RPG" equal "oh my god guys lets make all RPGs into FPG lolz!1"?

 

This is a ridiculous overreation on your part and part of the bitterness Diamond referred to early in the thread.

 

You can't seriously be that daft.  Talk about taking things way too literally, especially considering the rest of Hell Kitty's post.

 

Hell Kitty is talking about your skills as a game player, and the skills of the character.  For example, a classic point of a contradiction was in Morrowind, when you could shoot someone with a bow and arrow point blank, but then your character's skill determined after the fact whether or not it actually was a hit.

 

I can't really shoot a compound longbow, but if my skill as a player has me shoot an arrow (not a real arrow, but one in a video game, by using a mouse or some other form of input) and I see that arrow hit someone, but some bizarro mechanic says "nope, your skill wasn't good enough" then that's not a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you!

 

That is one of the reasons why I don't like twitch style gaming.  I just don't have the reflexes for it and if every CRPG, the only genre I really like, is going to be twitch based then what is the point of playing?  I play games to have fun, that is all.  Twitch games are not fun for me.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'd be pretty bored if all RPGs were the same. Sometimes I want fp and sometimes iso, sometimes I want realtime action combat, and sometimes turn-based tactical combat. Just because you or I may like a particular type of RPG, doesn't mean other types of RPGs aren't RPGs at all.

 

There's always LARPing, I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I prefer to pretend that LARPing doesn't exist.

 

Anyway...

 

The other day I was watching my little nephew play Metal Gear Solid. Solid Snake is supposed to be a legendary warrior, but the way my nephew played, you'd think Snake had never used a gun, never been in a fight, and wouldn't know what stealth meant even if he just looked it up in the dictionary.

 

My nephews low skill level cancelled out Snakes high skill level. That's just the nature of games, rpgs or not.

 

Say a gamer playing an iso turnbased RPG, and their high level party gets into a fight with a group they could easily beat, but end up losing the fight due to the poor choices they made every turn. Like the MGS example, this is a case of the players low skill level cancelling out the characters high skill level, and according to the definition some people seem to be using, would rule out turn-based tactical RPGs as RPGs.

 

RPGs aren't about using character skills and not player skills, afterall, a game that uses no player skills isn't a game at all. They take the skills of the player and the skills of the character/s and combine them to determine the outcome of any particular action. What seperates RPGs from other genres is that the skills/stats of the characters don't remain static, and building them up over the course of the adventure is a big part of the gameplay.

[213374U]

I think it's unreasonable that the game gimps the character because he hasn't enough points into a skill but the player can go around that point shortage by way of reflexes.

That's not reflexes. That's tactics and/or wits. It's not going around the system because the skill is still useless. Guns are supposed to be useful at a distance, but without points, they aren't really. Therefore, the skill is effectively gimped. And as Alan pointed out, anyone can walk up to you and shoot you in the back. It doesn't take a sharpshooter.

 

 

I remember steadying the sniper rifle by forcing the mouse on a circular pattern that did away with most of the wobbling given to portray lack of skill.

On the other hand, I was never able to hit jack at long distances. You could shoot moving targets that way too? How much had you invested in the small guns skill?

 

 

In the earlier levels I could easilly do this. Enemies have certain blind spots in their line of sight and general perception, so much that I can be crounching and walking right behind them without them ever noticing me. Not so much in the later levels, but still.

Again, the player is supposed to take advantage of the poor tactics of the enemy early in the game to supplement JC's lack of skills by that point. You are not supposed to be the unstoppable killing machine you are by the endgame, yet. Yes, they couldn't see you if you were behind them. So...?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

RPGs aren't about using character skills and not player skills, afterall, a game that uses no player skills isn't a game at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You'll note I'm not asking for player skills to be removed altogether nor for a PC in a CRPG to be automated; the simulation of personality is always required and that requires player input. While we would probably disagree on just how much player skills are required in order to infuse personality in a CRPG character, I'm simply pointing out that there are issues when both things are allowed to clash together and that they usually tend to bring down the importance of a character's role. Because of this I'm suggesting that there should be an attempt made to at least make the entity of the character to remain as separate from the player as possible so as to avoid this issue.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

That's not reflexes. That's tactics and/or wits. It's not going around the system because the skill is still useless.

 

Shooting at moving targets is not reflexes? If you say so.

 

A system that is meant to limit a character's choices because his skills are low shouldn't allow players to bypass it. Otherwise there is no point in such an arbitrary limitation because it's either not working or is working against itself.

 

On the other hand, I was never able to hit jack at long distances. You could shoot moving targets that way too? How much had you invested in the small guns skill?

 

Yes, I could shoot moving targets that way. And I spent no points at all into firearms other than the game automatically allocated (which was one point for Pistols, if I recall correctly).

 

Again, the player is supposed to take advantage of the poor tactics of the enemy early in the game to supplement JC's lack of skills by that point.

 

Nothing to do with supplementing his poor skills with some degree of player ingenuity. Unless you want to tell me that countering the machinegun's recoil and accuracy by simply dragging the mouse down - in the opposite direction of the gun's recoil - and thus removing any deficiency associated with using it at poor skill levels is some form of "strategy"?

 

You are not supposed to be the unstoppable killing machine you are by the endgame, yet.

 

I made no complaints about Denton not being an 'unstoppable killing machine', so I'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to stuff my mouth with your words.

 

Yes, they couldn't see you if you were behind them. So...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, your claim it was often impossible simply isn't true.

[213374U]

Shooting at moving targets is not reflexes? If you say so.

Shooting an unaware walking target from one or two metres behind requires no skill or reflexes whatsoever.

 

 

A system that is meant to limit a character's choices because his skills are low shouldn't allow players to bypass it. Otherwise there is no point in such an arbitrary limitation because it's either not working or is working against itself.

It does limit the player's choices because it makes a combat skill useless in a lot of combat situations (that don't involve sneaking).

 

 

Yes, I could shoot moving targets that way. And I spent no points at all into firearms other than the game automatically allocated (which was one point for Pistols, if I recall correctly).

Well, then I can only congratulate you on your uber leet skills. You are the first person I see that claims they had no problems whatsoever bypassing the limitations imposed by the skill system. You should consider a career in Counterstrike. People earn loads of money that way.

 

 

Nothing to do with supplementing his poor skills with some degree of player ingenuity. Unless you want to tell me that countering the machinegun's recoil and accuracy by simply dragging the mouse down - in the opposite direction of the gun's recoil - and thus removing any deficiency associated with using it at poor skill levels is some form of "strategy"?

Again, there's nothing but your word to support this. I tried it, and it was completely inefficient. So, whatever.

 

 

I made no complaints about Denton not being an 'unstoppable killing machine', so I'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to stuff my mouth with your words.

Maybe you'd like it better if I stuffed your mouth with something else? Hmm?

 

 

So, your claim it was often impossible simply isn't true.

It was often impossible because often you couldn't sneak up on one enemy without others seeing you. Thus the subtle difference between "often" and "always".

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Shooting an unaware walking target from one or two metres behind requires no skill or reflexes whatsoever.

 

Funny thing, I just searched the page for entries of "unaware" and it turns out I only see one such entry and it's in your post. Show me exactly where I wrote 'unaware'. Or alternatively, provide some actual argument instead of assuming how I am playing the game - especially when you flat out ignored that I said moving now, but managed to remember I said moving further down the line when you find it funny to claim I have Counterstrike skills.

 

It does limit the player's choices because it makes a combat skill useless in a lot of combat situations (that don't involve sneaking).

 

But not always, which is my point.

 

Well, then I can only congratulate you on your uber leet skills. You are the first person I see that claims they had no problems whatsoever bypassing the limitations imposed by the skill system. You should consider a career in Counterstrike. People earn loads of money that way.

 

I would, if the required skill wasn't at the hands of just about everyone.

 

Again, there's nothing but your word to support this. I tried it, and it was completely inefficient. So, whatever.

 

And there's nothing but your word to support its inefficiency. I tried it and managed, and can repeat it whenever I want to. Anyone that has hands instead of stumps can do this since it doesn't require greats feats of dexterity. So, whatever? I would suggest getting some game capturing software myself so I could show this within the game to everyone but I know you all too well to even accept the possibility you're in this for actual discussion and not pedantic and puerile trolling.

 

Maybe you'd like it better if I stuffed your mouth with something else? Hmm? 

 

I'd like it better if you stopped assuming you're wittier and funnier than what you really are because judging from the lack of poor judgement and selective reading that permeates your posts, nothing justifies that smugness.

 

It was often impossible because often you couldn't sneak up on one enemy without others seeing you. Thus the subtle difference between "often" and "always".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then how did I get by the majority of the game with stealth and taking advantage of these blind spots most of the time? Why is it often impossible considering it was designed that way to allow stealth players to advance through the game? Let me guess - you tried it and it was inefficient and there's nothing to go by this except my word, and the words of everyone who can do - and has done - the same as me.

[213374U]

Funny thing, I just searched the page for entries of "unaware" and it turns out I only see one such entry and it's in your post. Show me exactly where I wrote 'unaware'. Or alternatively, provide some actual argument instead of assuming how I am playing the game - especially when you flat out ignored that I said moving now, but managed to remember I said moving further down the line when you find it funny to claim I have Counterstrike skills.

Catching enemies unaware is part of the stealth style you claim to have sported to beat DX... in this very post. Or did you tap them in the shoulder before shooting them?

 

At any rate, shooting a man-sized target at point blank range requires no skill or reflexes whatsoever, unaware or not.

 

 

But not always, which is my point.

Why should it limit player's choices beyond what is reasonable? JCD is supposed to be an active operative of an anti-terrorist organization. This assumes he's at least proficient with guns.

 

Now, go ahead and produce the inevitable smarmy explanation for JCD not necessarily having those skills. I can't wait.

 

 

I would, if the required skill wasn't at the hands of just about everyone.

Just about everyone? So far, you are the only one making that claim. Egocentric much?

 

 

And there's nothing but your word to support its inefficiency.

My word, and the system working as intended.

 

 

I tried it and managed, and can repeat it whenever I want to. Anyone that has hands instead of stumps can do this since it doesn't require greats feats of dexterity. So, whatever? I would suggest getting some game capturing software myself so I could show this within the game to everyone but I know you all too well to even accept the possibility you're in this for actual discussion and not pedantic and puerile trolling.

A personal attack as an excuse for not presenting evidence to support your claims of leetness, how original. But it gets even better, as you accuse me of trolling, in the same paragraph! You're so full of it it's almost funny. Almost funny, as in sad.

 

 

Maybe you'd like it better if I stuffed your mouth with something else? Hmm? 

I'd like it better if you stopped assuming you're wittier and funnier than what you really are because judging from the lack of poor judgement and selective reading that permeates your posts, nothing justifies that smugness.

What, playing hard to get? Now now, you know what they say... "beggars can't be choosers".

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Catching enemies unaware is part of the stealth style you claim to have sported to beat DX... in this very post. Or did you tap them in the shoulder before shooting them?

 

I mentioned two distinct scenarios, firefights and stealth, in two different ocasions. In fact, the possibility of firefights was brought up before stealth and when stealth came into discussion it was to illustrate a point, it wasn't particularly related to the previous example. You were the only one who assumed as much.

 

At any rate, shooting a man-sized target at point blank range requires no skill or reflexes whatsoever, unaware or not.

 

When fighting any opponent with a ranged weapon at a fairly close range in the game, reflexes are always present because dodging enemy fire and targetting hostiles depends on the player's reflexes - since the notion of fighting implies action between opponenets and the very simple concept that opponents' reflexes are present in their reactions to each other's movements. Unless a player is standind still and trying to shoot someone, and even then they're shooting back at hostiles. If neither reflexes nor skill are required to shoot back at enemies, then do explain what is.

 

Why should it limit player's choices beyond what is reasonable? JCD is supposed to be an active operative of an anti-terrorist organization. This assumes he's at least proficient with guns.

 

His proficiency is not at stake. The player's ability to override restrictions to limits in those proficiencies is. If the game tells me JC can't handle a weapon's recoil, I - since I am perceiving the gameworld and it's rules through JC - shouldn't be able to handle recoil as well. And I can't to an extent, true, but I also can - oblivious to the game system - override it myself by pushing the mouse back down as the Assault Rifle goes up, producing a motion that nullifies most of the recoil penalty. Or I could trace a projectile path on a hostile's body so that the bullet trajectories get most of the body (ie, aiming at the legs and firing so the bullets will go up and through legs, torso and head as the natural recoil movement is applied) instead of just aiming at the torso and see half the bullets sprayed fail their intended target.

 

Simple fact is that if restrictions are necessary then the system should allow the player to negotiate these restrictions through the game, not through actions that the game cannot recognize - and Deus Ex can't, at least in this aspect. If the game system tells me that the avatar is weak at handling a particular weapon group, then why am I able to use them just fine by going around the penalty applied? If I can negotiate the recoil penalty with my reflexes for a specific type of rifles then where is the penalty or the notion that the avatar is weak at this weapon group?

 

Just about everyone? So far, you are the only one making that claim. Egocentric much?

 

You were the one that bestowed me with Counterstrike skills, not me. I always said this was open to everyone due to its ease and obviousness. I doubt godly skills or a PhD is required to figure out that if the weapon recoil makes a weapon go up then I might just counter that by moving the mouse down.

 

My word, and the system working as intended.

 

Moot point since I didn't question that the system was working as intended. I'm quite sure it works as intended by the developers - just not as it should for players since there is no reliable limitation on a specific weapon skill handling. The character restriction is in place, the player penalty is in place - yet it's lacking something that prevents the penalty from being compromised by players.

 

A personal attack as an excuse for not presenting evidence to support your claims of leetness, how original.

 

You were the one who claimed I had leet uber skills, not me. Why should I present evidence of something you claimed of me? I guess this must be another of those newfangled attempts at wittiness or originality I've been hearing about. May I expect some of those avant-garde "your mom" jokes from you next?

 

But it gets even better, as you accuse me of trolling, in the same paragraph! You're so full of it it's almost funny. Almost funny, as in sad.

 

When someone isn't answering my points in spite of them being clearly laid out, chooses to selectively read what I write only to try and make some half-hearted amusement out of it, and goes for unappropriate innuendo when they're confronted with the fact that they're (repeatedly) lying about what others are saying, they're very much acting the part of the troll. Or they may just be idiots who think their bloated egos deserve some kind of audience, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you to be the first rather than the second.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Role-Player

[metadigital]

RPGs aren't about using character skills and not player skills, afterall, a game that uses no player skills isn't a game at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll note I'm not asking for player skills to be removed altogether nor for a PC in a CRPG to be automated; the simulation of personality is always required and that requires player input. While we would probably disagree on just how much player skills are required in order to infuse personality in a CRPG character, I'm simply pointing out that there are issues when both things are allowed to clash together and that they usually tend to bring down the importance of a character's role. Because of this I'm suggesting that there should be an attempt made to at least make the entity of the character to remain as separate from the player as possible so as to avoid this issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that is even possible, let alone desirable.

 

I think this point is a valid one: PnP and cRPG games aren't about creating a new PC that is totally divorced from the person playing it. The person playing it is still in command of all their memories, experiences, expertise, etc ... that is unavoidable. Also, that's the point, really, I would argue: the player is enabled to use their meagre skills to play a super-hero, balanced according to the achievements of the PC over time (translated to experience for levels, traits, feats and bonuses, etc).

 

A system that is meant to limit a character's choices because his skills are low shouldn't allow players to bypass it. Otherwise there is no point in such an arbitrary limitation because it's either not working or is working against itself.

 

On the other hand, I was never able to hit jack at long distances. You could shoot moving targets that way too? How much had you invested in the small guns skill?

Yes, I could shoot moving targets that way. And I spent no points at all into firearms other than the game automatically allocated (which was one point for Pistols, if I recall correctly).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's called metagaming.

Again, the player is supposed to take advantage of the poor tactics of the enemy early in the game to supplement JC's lack of skills by that point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing to do with supplementing his poor skills with some degree of player ingenuity. Unless you want to tell me that countering the machinegun's recoil and accuracy by simply dragging the mouse down - in the opposite direction of the gun's recoil - and thus removing any deficiency associated with using it at poor skill levels is some form of "strategy"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, actually, I would call that strategy (as opposed to your mouse tinkering, above); if you were using a real machinegun, you would learn to counter the natural (and predictable) movement of the barrel as you fired, in much the same way.

 

The player's ability to override restrictions to limits in those proficiencies is. If the game tells me JC can't handle a weapon's recoil, I - since I am perceiving the gameworld and it's rules through JC - shouldn't be able to handle recoil as well. And I can't to an extent, true, but I also can - oblivious to the game system - override it myself by pushing the mouse back down as the Assault Rifle goes up, producing a motion that nullifies most of the recoil penalty. Or I could trace a projectile path on a hostile's body so that the bullet trajectories get most of the body (ie, aiming at the legs and firing so the bullets will go up and through legs, torso and head as the natural recoil movement is applied) instead of just aiming at the torso and see half the bullets sprayed fail their intended target.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's just YOU

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't think that is even possible, let alone desirable.

 

I think this point is a valid one: PnP and cRPG games aren't about creating a new PC that is totally divorced from the person playing it.

 

I agree somewhat, and hence why I said to remain as separate as possible. I know full well it can't be completely separate.

 

The person playing it is still in command of all their memories, experiences, expertise, etc ... that is unavoidable. Also, that's the point, really, I would argue: the player is enabled to use their meagre skills to play a super-hero, balanced according to the achievements of the PC over time (translated to experience for levels, traits, feats and bonuses, etc).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your point is fine but I must confess I don't understand why you're telling me this.

 

Even forgetting the past conversations we've exchanged about this, I also mentioned in this thread that I have no qualms with this. What I am pointing out is that if you want to have the player's own skills factor into the game, then do so without some arbitrary character system that skews their efforts or that renders it partially useless - or vice versa. This is why I've mentioned Deus Ex was a good example when it came to movement, since the absence of a character statistic permitted a much better flow between the notion of character improvement and player skill. There is never the case when JC is too slow to move or dodge because he has an 8 in Dexterity. JC is as fast as the player that controls him, which is fine. Not everyone's cup of tea but then again no game ever is. And it certainly won't stand the test of time since at one point older gamers may not even come back to the game at all since they no longer required the necessary reflexes to get into it (which is another plus when it comes to separating both player and character, but I digress).

 

But if you're going to build a system where the player's skill is going to be directly tied to a character's own statistic or skill, then you should be aware that this might bring problems. In the case of Deus Ex this is manifest in several weapon skills, due to so many time tested gameplay realities that I'm surprised some people still have a hard time understanding. All I'm saying is - the parts that work are good, the ones that don't entirely work need some revision.