Thoughts on Mandatory Combat

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

that's some weird-@ssed basic model you've got there, given how different NWN combat was from the IE games.

 

i liked IE combat. i disliked NWN combat. but neither is especially appropriate for what is basically an SF game with laser swords. KOTOR combat was okay for lightsabre duels, but for everything else it was silly.

It's only different if you add in the party dynamic. Otherwise its very similiar. Especially to IWD II with its active feats.

 

Curious that. What did you like about IE combat ? (my guess would be the party dynamic).

 

Not sure what you mean by silly. If it worked for lightsabers it must by default work for other melee. Unless your of the opinion that a lightsaber should be able to cut through other weapons.

 

Star Wars is generally lacking in weapons of interest anyway. Perhaps they should borrow some from the JK series to add a bit more variety.

[Volourn]

What do you mean, Newc? Other than the fact that the IE games you had full control of the npcs and that NWN had more tatical options the combat at its most basic level run exactly the same way.

 

Shadow, as Drakron pointed out, the reason why KOTOR;'s combat is much more simple than NWN's has nothing to do with not being D&D. D20 which KOTOR uses (to a degree) has lots of incldued combinations.

 

Of course Drakron exaggerates and lies at that. It had nothing to do with laziness and lies; but the fact is the combat rules wasn't BIO's main concern when it comes to KOTOR. For a guy who hates BIo so much he sure scoops up their games very quickly so it only entails me to believe he lies when he states how much he hates them.

[Judge Hades]

If they can make the game interesting and playable without resorting to combat even once, then I will be impressed. I want a total pacifist option like there was in the Fallout games.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Being a pacifist in a game is more of a fun thing to do than a necessity, or a must. Combat is always present, and as far as i'm concerned, that's a good thing. I like combat, i just don't like combat at every turn. Various options to solve a situation is what should be aimed for.

[Volourn]

You can't be a 'total pacifist' in the Fo games. Stop spreading myths, rumours, and innuendo.

[Lord Tingeling]

Volo stikes again!

 

You *can* be a total Pacifist in FO1. Don't think it can be done in 2, though.

 

Stop spreading myths, rumours and innuendo.

[Volourn]

Really? you are wrong. It's really that simple as that as I have shown with one certain fact time and time again. Setting off bombs that kills multiple bad guys is not pacifism. Period.

 

You are also very original as you can't even come up with your lame comments.

[Lord Tingeling]

This thread is about mandatory combat in RPG's. A person not partaking in such acts of combat is called a pacifist, "period".

 

I don't know about this shwoning, but it's 00:30 here right now, and I'm getting pretty tired. So, when I need to add that finishing lame one-liner to my post, I turn to the most obvious source.

[Berserk]

Really? youa re wrong. It's really that simple as that as I ahve shwon with one certain fact time and time again. Setting off bombs that kills multiple bad guys is not pacifism. Period.

Well, to be totally honest does it count if the Master himself sets the A-bomb off? It's not like you are able to stop him or plan to nuke the cathedral in the first place....

[Volourn]

So, one who kills with bombs is a pacifist? Weird... I guess suicide bombers are pacifists...

 

Beserk: If the Master sets it off; it's not your fault. But you are forgetting the Army base where you have to be the one to set it off...

[Lord Tingeling]

So, one who kills with bombs is a pacifist? Weird... I guess suicide bombers are pacifists...

THAT...IS...NOT...THE *POINT*!

 

The point is not wheter you can be a "pacifist" as in one who opposes all forms of violence or killing in FO1, the point is wheter you can be a so called "pacifist character", as in the [popular] RPG character definition of the word.

 

My warrior in NWN is pretty much a tank.

 

[Volournian logic]

 

What's the RPM of it's main cannon?

 

Where's the machineguns?

 

How good is his front armor plating?

 

What kind of calibre are we talking, here?

 

[/Volournian logic]

[Volourn]

Wha tare you babblling about? Visceris quite clearly stated you can be a pacifist - as in thou shall not kill - in the Fos which you cannot. period. Your logic is about twisting that meaning. Period.

[Judge Hades]

In Fallout 1 you can beat the game without killing anyone. The Master kills himself off of his own free will. You simply talked to him then ran away very quickly. In Fallout 2 you can never engage the enemy directly and still win. Mind you that is not total pacisifism, but hey its close enough for me.

[Lord Tingeling]

Wha tare you babblling about? Visceris quite clearly stated you can be a pacifist - as in thou shall not kill - in the Fos which you cannot. period. Your logic is about twisting that meaning. Period.

must...resist...Volournian...logic...

 

If they can make the game interesting and playable without resorting to combat even once, then I will be impressed. I want a total pacifist option like there was in the Fallout games.

 

Oh, well. Nice try, Volo.

 

As for the "I want a total pacifist option", he could either be talking about

 

A: Not resorting to combat

 

B: Thou shalt not kill

 

Given his other posts, which of these do you think he was talking about? I haven't seen him saying "without killing even once" here or anywhere else. I have seen him saying "without entering combat even once", though.

 

Who knows, maybe they mean the same thing in Volournia?

[Volourn]

Hades explained his post above. he emans not killing someone ocne. He is mistaken hwoever as in FO1 you have to kill people. You have to kill the mutants and scientists when you set off the explosion at the Army Base whcih is where I came in said you can't be a pacifist in FO1. 'Close' but no cigar. He even admits that it ma not be total pacifsm but it's close enough for him.

 

Bottom line is that you have to kill in both Fallouts. Period.

[Lord Tingeling]

Sorry, Volo, I don't smoke.

 

As for the matter at hand, my point still stands. You can be a pacifist in FO1, i.e a character that doesn't actively partake in combat, just as much as you can be a tank in NWN by soaking up massive amounts of damage.

 

"Joe is a pacifist" != "My character is a pacifist"

 

"That's a tank" != "My character is a tank"

 

They can mean the same thing, and you might be playing some sort of medieval MBT in NWN as we speak, who knows. But the definiton "meat shield" "tank" or "pacifist" often have different meanings when talking about characters in various games.

 

Satisfied, or are you going to fling a few more periods around?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Shadow, as Drakron pointed out, the reason why KOTOR;'s combat is much more simple than NWN's has nothing to do with not being D&D. D20 which KOTOR uses (to a degree) has lots of incldued combinations.

 

Of course Drakron exaggerates and lies at that. It had nothing to do with laziness and lies; but the fact is the combat rules wasn't BIO's main concern when it comes to KOTOR. For a guy who hates BIo so much he sure scoops up their games very quickly so it only entails me to believe he lies when he states how much he hates them.

Well what are the reasons it's more simple ?

[Volourn]

Sure. If you want to twist definitions to fit your belief, I'll elt you think you are right accoridng to the new twisted definition. Period.

 

P.S. Pacifism is the total lack of violence and last i checked setting oiff bombs is violence. Period x2.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When no one can agree on a definition its a good idea to fall back on the dictionary one.

 

1. belief in the peaceful resolution of conflicts: a belief that violence, war, and the taking of lives are unacceptable ways of resolving disputes

 

Which generally rules out being a pacifist in FO 1&2. Even if you are not pulling the trigger and or sticking the knife in you are taking lives by your actions.

 

Dont think you would find the EQ defintion of tank in a dictionary

[Lord Tingeling]

Sure. If you want to twist definitions to fit your belief, I'll elt you think you are right accoridng to the new twisted definition. Period.

Why do I do this!? God, I never realized I was such a masochist.

 

Volo, tell me... can you play as a tank char in NWN? Yes? No?

 

P.S. Pacifism is the total lack of violence and last i checked setting oiff bombs is violence. Period x2.

 

D.S: I see you still haven't got the point. Do keep trying, Volo.

[Volourn]

Shadow: 1. Going back to that topic, the lack of actual combat feats. In NWN, you have many active combat feats like knockdown, called shot, and diarm just to name a few. You don't really ahve that in KOTOR at all. You click, and point and you heal in those rare times the combat is even hard.

 

 

 

 

Sojiro: 1. Yes, yes youa re a masochist. You hafta be to debate with me. :ph34r:

 

2. yes, yes you can play a 'tank' in NWN. Your point?

 

3. It's not my fault youa re twisting the definition of pacifism.

[Lord Tingeling]

2. yes, yes you can play a 'tank' in NWN. Your point?

Take a guess.

 

"EDIT: OMG, Volo, you're twisting the definition again! I see no T-72's or any other MBT or armoured veichle in NWN!!!!!"

 

 

Next question:

 

Can you do a "pacifist build" and play it fully (i.e a character avoiding all **COMBAT**) in Fallout 1?

 

 

(Note that I did not ask you if you could RP Fallout as a pacifist, so don't try to pull that one on me, eh, Volo?)

[Volourn]

Can you build it? yes; but you can't role-play it. You can't be pacifist in FO1. Period.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Shadow: 1. Going back to that topic, the lack of actual combat feats. In NWN, you have many active combat feats like knockdown, called shot, and diarm just to name a few. You don't really ahve that in KOTOR at all. You click, and point and you heal in those rare times the combat is even hard.

So adding those extra active feats in would make KOTOR as involved as NWN ? Although except on a few occasions those were skills I used purely for something to do rather than because they were required. Not a huge fan of adding things just because they look "pretty".

 

Actually I'd go one further and say because the AC's in KOTOR are so low and the BaB's are so high there is very little point in ever not using flurry or the blaster equivelent.

[Volourn]

Shadow: Those feats in NWN (or TOEE for that matter) are there more than how good they look. They are also useful and can make the game a lot more manageable. That enemy that does 20 damage a hit is not as dangerous if he's always on the ground...