Elegance in CRPG rulesets

[Walsingham]

in my experience it is a vast mistake to try and cross apply tabletop maths to a computer environment. On the tabletop we make result generation exciting through human interaction. On computer, we make result generation natural and exciting generally by going beyond the obvious and into complex algebra. Exposing that would be pretty much of interest to rules lawyers only.

 

However, I accept that the descriptions should be far far better in Dragon Age. I never took Arrow of Slaying because it looked totally pointless. Why waste a feat on something which gives you a critical hit when crits aren't that great? Assuming I am remembering it correctly.

 

As an aside, it's worth remembering that obscure maths must still remain clear to the designers. I just finished kotor2 in record time because I dual wielded light sabers as opposed to going down the single melee route like last time. I wasn't meta-gaming on the previous occassion but it's obvious on reflection that this would be the case. Unless each of the dual weapons is half as powerful as the single weapon then you deal out more damage. But that's before you get into loading up those weapons with bonus packages which add dexterity etc. Learn flurry of blows and I was killing (on the hardest difficulty) enemies in the last level with one attack. Ok, it's pretty cool, but not much to make up for the days I spent on it previously slugging away with a single ordinary buffed sword.*

 

 

*I felt this was roleplaying someone with an ambivalence towards the Force. Damn my eyes.

[Sannom]

However, I accept that the descriptions should be far far better in Dragon Age. I never took Arrow of Slaying because it looked totally pointless. Why waste a feat on something which gives you a critical hit when crits aren't that great? Assuming I am remembering it correctly.

 

Yeah, the description of Arrow of Slaying (tier 4 power) isn't that much different from Critical Shot (tier 2 power I think) but the effect are really different. Arrow of slaying doubles the base damage, then apply a critical hit on those damages, and then add even more damage depending on the level of the player and the level of the target. In this case, the math could have been useful, or a really "frightening" description.

 

But as far as power description go, I think Sunder Arms and Sunder Armor are the most offending. It tells you that it hinders attack/armor, but fails to inform you that the character strikes two times when using this ability, which makes it an excellent damage dealer (especially Sunder Arms, since it has a really low stamina cost and a really short cooldown) with the bonus of hindering attack or armor.

[Siamese Cat]

As an aside, it's worth remembering that obscure maths must still remain clear to the designers. I just finished kotor2 in record time because I dual wielded light sabers as opposed to going down the single melee route like last time. I wasn't meta-gaming on the previous occassion but it's obvious on reflection that this would be the case. Unless each of the dual weapons is half as powerful as the single weapon then you deal out more damage. But that's before you get into loading up those weapons with bonus packages which add dexterity etc. Learn flurry of blows and I was killing (on the hardest difficulty) enemies in the last level with one attack. Ok, it's pretty cool, but not much to make up for the days I spent on it previously slugging away with a single ordinary buffed sword.*

IMO, it seems to be more about balancing, which would become easier when the system is simpler. This is written in an entry of Sawyer's blog. Of course, if you are complaining of anti-climax-ness and/or anti-epic-ness of the boss fight of KotORs, I totally agree with you. KotORs may not be good examples for tactical complexities...the designers need to let the players feel like they are really bad-ass warriors called Jedi. To be true to the original setting, there should be those who are designed to be defeated like paper dolls. However, there is no excuse for the boss fights since they are often Jedi vs Sith, which are considered to be tough fights (Oh, poor Darth Nihiluth, you were such a paper tiger...) Then again, even in the "epic" fights of Jedi vs Sith, the most important thing is that you feel how cool your chosen stances look. For example, a system which allows dramatic counterattack technique/finishing movements which can turn table would be nicer especially when they are balanced well. A situation where a Jedi waits for a chance to counterattack, concentrating his/her force while fending Sith's overwhelming powerful attacks would fit the image of "epic" battle of SW universe. Well, to be honest, I'm not a big SW fan but a system which can manifest such "dramatic" situation would definitely fit the spirit of the movies.

 

Related with this, some people may think it is important for the game system to simulate the reality but I think it is more important to manifest the feel of the given settings and characters in role-playing games and, in that way, the game system itself should be designed. This may be more to do with what Chris Avellone says that there should be points where the narrative and game system are optimized to.

In general, though, it's better to approach it from the game mechanics standpoint and let what the player can do in the game tell a story. Fallout's good about this - some of the best "stories" I got from Fallout 1 and 2, for example, were ones where Stealth and Combat options spoke for themselves in reactivity and quest solutions. And a lot of child pickpockets got blown up from ticking dynamite that somehow got planted on them - or through accidental repeated injections of Super Stimpaks.

 

In short, the game "story" can end up being less important than the player's experience in the game, whether they are actual story events are not. It's hard to compete with a story about how a player's 3rd level dwarven fighter survived a bum-rush of 20 orcs in a narrow corridor armed only with a ball-peen hammer and smashed through them Oldboy-style with only 2 hit points to spare... and it's guaranteed to generate more passion from the player than perhaps your most tragic character with his heart-rending story to tell. It's something you just have to accept, and even better, provide opportunities for. Give the player room to breathe.

In fact, even tabletop games, good designers seem to know how to let their systems manifest these moments from time to time.

 

However, I am not saying that reality is not important in games. Of course, it's important in games with real-world setting and/or strict Sci-Fi. Using the current projects as examples, personally, I like Chain shot ability while I am not so happy with Fury simply because the latter feel more comical than "realistic." Fury suites Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines with super natural twists rather than real-world AP, IMO. Chain shot ability feels right simply because it would make the players feel as if he/she were Billy the kid even if he/she is not good at shooting. Unfortunately, most of presentations of skills in VtM:B felt comical and breaking atmosphere.

 

In any case, I think a elegant role-playing system should be able to manifest these moments where the players feel merged with the settings/characters.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Siamese Cat

[Oner]

You can handwave Fury as an adrenaline rush or some such. Just sayin'.

[Siamese Cat]

You can handwave Fury as an adrenaline rush or some such. Just sayin'.

I meant there could be a place for tactics even in the toe-to-toe combat rule design. Obviously, I'm not great fan of the philosophy of "Let's do everything with D20." D20 is basically designed for party-based combats, which, IMO, weakened the toe-to-toe Jedi-Sith battles in SW universe while the plots were focused on Jedi-Sith/Sith-Sith confrontation. This was definitely one of the major weak points of KotORs since it fails to manifest important factors of SW universe, which was my point.

[Walsingham]

I like Siamese Cat's idea for the playing for time Force comeback option. I'm not sure if I'd enjoy playing it but it would definitely be more awesome in retrospect.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

in my experience it is a vast mistake to try and cross apply tabletop maths to a computer environment. On the tabletop we make result generation exciting through human interaction. On computer, we make result generation natural and exciting generally by going beyond the obvious and into complex algebra. Exposing that would be pretty much of interest to rules lawyers only.

 

I'd even argue that in a lot of cases traditional tabletop math isn't fun in tabletop games. For example, the emphasis in pre 4.0 d&d on success or failure being the major scaling aspect of your character at low levels (fancy way of saying you miss a LOT) on single actions that make up your entire turn really hurts gameplay even in tabletop sessions. It certainly doesn't help PC games, either.

 

Fallout handled this really well by letting you opt in to higher difficulty challenges (called shots) so you could scale as you gained levels without making you miss all the time in order to provide a sense of progression.

[Oner]

I'd even argue that in a lot of cases traditional tabletop math isn't fun in tabletop games. For example, the emphasis in pre 4.0 d&d on success or failure being the major scaling aspect of your character at low levels (fancy way of saying you miss a LOT) on single actions that make up your entire turn really hurts gameplay even in tabletop sessions. It certainly doesn't help PC games, either.

 

Fallout handled this really well by letting you opt in to higher difficulty challenges (called shots) so you could scale as you gained levels without making you miss all the time in order to provide a sense of progression.

I like that beginners miss a lot. It's sort of realistic (and at the same time, not), and some game systems I've played (Dark Age Vampire; a local RPG mixed (badly) with DnD) easily ended up having one hit kill battles (usually with our victory - my BFF is a natural at making one man slaughterhouses). Not much more fun either. After a while.

 

OTOH, constantly missing while the GM rolls devastating criticals...ugh..bane of my existence.

[Walsingham]

in my experience it is a vast mistake to try and cross apply tabletop maths to a computer environment. On the tabletop we make result generation exciting through human interaction. On computer, we make result generation natural and exciting generally by going beyond the obvious and into complex algebra. Exposing that would be pretty much of interest to rules lawyers only.

 

I'd even argue that in a lot of cases traditional tabletop math isn't fun in tabletop games. For example, the emphasis in pre 4.0 d&d on success or failure being the major scaling aspect of your character at low levels (fancy way of saying you miss a LOT) on single actions that make up your entire turn really hurts gameplay even in tabletop sessions. It certainly doesn't help PC games, either.

 

Fallout handled this really well by letting you opt in to higher difficulty challenges (called shots) so you could scale as you gained levels without making you miss all the time in order to provide a sense of progression.

 

Well, that's true. I designed board games for a while, and I often felt that dice themselves were the problem. I know my codesigners hated the fact that we had to use D6 all the time, mainly because of the way 2d6 forms such a consistent distribution.