In LoL there are some characters with a dodge chance.....your AC is your dodge chance (functionally anyway...technically any AC attributed to your armor/shield is a non-damaging glancing blow)...nothing more. Your save is your chance to avoid the worst effects of a spell...nothing more.
unless they go full out FPS/TPS, it'll never be skill-based.
Hell, besides Little Wars, I'm actually having trouble thinking of a skill-based table-top game system (and even that only applied to using the artillery troops).
You are NOT your character, your character is his skills, training, equipment, and stats, you can tell him what to do, but if he doesn't have the actual skill to do it in-character it or his opponent is similarly or better skilled fails, aside from random twists of fate....it's just an enforced part of roleplaying. Otherwise your characters would ALWAYS be killed by the first enemy you encounter, because they're better then you in every possible way.
Even in skill based games, the ENEMY is simulated, otherwise you'll be getting drilled with perfect head-shots every time they pull the trigger. And if you happen to suck at games like that, you'll die horribly.
Using a dice system levels the playing field, and gives even hopelessly outmatched characters at least a tiny, though VERY unlikely, chance of winning.
I think that adherence to PnP rules is important to the quality of the games in the sense that it improves them in most cases. However, I don't think that it's up to us (what I assume is a minority of BG fans) to expect an alteration of the original developers' vision for the games.
I'm happy making use of any PnP mods so helpfully created by modders. The game designers intended for the BG games to deviate from PnP in many, many ways, and so that's how the games should stay.
@ZanathKariashi - I think we want a very different game. If I read right, you see the character as a separate entity from the player that requires the player to think as the character would. Meanwhile, I see the character is an extension of the player that gives the player the ability to influence the world and therefore experience the story, though the character may of course have a personality etc.
When I play games such as this, I like to know that I have complete control of what I am able to do. I feel that when I do something that I should be able to predict the result. In cases where I cannot predict the result I don't like to take the risk.
In Baldur's Gate, individual random checks determine a significant number of things in the short term. What I dislike about this is that in a number of cases there is no way to bypass the inherent risk. In some cases there is a clear winner, but in other cases a couple of lucky rolls can completely determine a fight. From reading around here it is a simple coded restriction that prevents enemies from one-shotting you at the beginning of the game.
While one might see the appeal in the learning curve of "It's a cruel world you grow into", but it's hard for anyone to deny that it would be extremely frustrating for someone to get killed by a lucky gibberling, or for an example outside of the D&D mechanics, an ambush in the short trip to the storyline's advertised safe haven.
I do disagree that the game would have to be converted into a 3rd/1st person shooter in order to create a more skill-based game. Mechanics such as telegraphed abilities or 'skillshots' have existed for a long time and are really suited to games that function similarly in controls. Abilities that rely on randomness now can be changed into abilities that instead rely on conditions that the player may or may not set up (PW: Kill, Save denial vs. weak enemies already do this to some extent), etc. etc.
Off-topic - In LoL they actually removed dodge chance from the game completely. The designers are in the process of slowly removing all short-term random effects from the game.
And no, there is NO mechanic that prevents one-shots, anyone that says that is a moron. The closest thing is Easy difficulty halving damage you take from all sources.
You're misunderstanding my point. Yes, a character is an extension of the player, in that you determine their goals and how they approach something and you in most cases even get to pick their base stats and how they grow, but that is all the input you get. That's how the game system is designed.
Simulated combat is every table-top game ever made, you literally being your character is LARP.
What you want will never happen, because the rules were NEVER designed to be played that way. You might as well go play a different game entirely.
I have never played PnP, so any inconsistencies between the two aren't going to bother me. Without any actual knowledge of what the differences are, however, it seems unlikely that all of them would translate well into a computer game, simply because they weren't designed for that.
They're surprisingly versatile rules. One of the optional combat modes is actually how BG's combat system works (personal initiative round optional rule, including weapon speed instead of initiative). It's confusing as hell to try and use in table-top but works perfectly for a CRPG.
I think it's more important to stay true to the original BG style of play & design than to try to shoehorn the game into a rule-set that was specifically designed for a totally different (non-computer game) genre - it's not hardcore BG fans that want the game more true to PnP - it's PnP fans
I gotta disagree with ZK on the versatility of D&D rules. The game is versatile, because PnP games are inherently versatile, but this is a result of the format, not of the mechanics themselves. D&D's mechanics cover combat decently (although in too random a format for my tastes, and with way too much save-or-die stuff), but their handling of everything non-combat is just awful. It's always either "happen to have the appropriate spell" or "make one die roll." Sometimes both. Speaking as someone who's played with and written actual social, stealth, crafting, research, etc. systems for PnP rpgs, I can say that D&D's versions are lacking to the point of being restrictive to player choice.
But that's neither here nor there. Now that we're two pages in and the arguments have started, I guess I'll explain my stance on the issue, in case anyone's interested. I don't think adherence to PnP rules is remotely important. You can tell that from my poll vote. I do think that sometimes they're better than what Baldur's Gate currently has in place. PnP druids are a great example. They get lots of cool peripheral benefits that make them pretty awesome, and their spell selection is actually pretty good. On the other hand, their Creeping Doom spell is a great example of why the rules are flat-out flawed in many places (seriously, the PnP version of Creeping Doom is basically a no-save-1-hit-kill to everything within 10 feet of you unless they're specifically prepared for it). All-in-all, I think Baldur's Gate is a much better game because of the things it's changed, even if not all of the changes are positive. There are ways I would like to see Baldur's Gate brought in line with PnP, not because 2E D&D is a perfect (or even halfway decent) system, but because there were some good ideas that Baldur's Gate missed. But I don't see any inherent value in adhering to PnP, or any inherent flaws in deviating from it. Maybe it's my nature as an extreme house-ruler, but my reasoning is basically "take the good, leave the bad." And there is no shortage of bad in 2E D&D.
The first time I played Baldur's Gate I thought "Wow, this is amazing. It's just like playing D&D." But that was because it was an immersive experience not because it stuck closely to a particular rule set. I started out playing 2nd Edition D&D but we never regarded the rules as carved in stone. We used all kinds of official (Judges' Guild) and unofficial (found in a fanzine) rules and amendments. What you want to end up with is something that works not something that slavishly follows a set of rules that were never intended to be Holy writ in the first place.
"Dragon Age" is what happens when you don't stick to PnP rules. The game was ok, but it's no Baldur's Gate. The closer the game gets to PnP the more immersive it will be.
I would start by saying I love 2E rules, it's by far my favorite rule set for PNP gaming. But that said, every game I've ever played in had house rules and variations, that typically increase and grow more sophisticated the longer that particular game runs. And I think that's great. It's using an excellent system as a starting point, and modifying it for the style and mood a particular DM and group of players want. Infinity Engine is the same sort of thing. It starts with an excellent rule set, and modifies it both as a CRPG and for the specific wants of the designers and story tellers. I do think a lot of mods and recent patches are getting a little silly with too many new classes and kits mucking up the system, and I'll always wish they'd added more of the secondary bonuses associated with scores (wisdom giving bonuses against charm, intelligence helping against illusions, etc); but overall I'm very happy with the product.
Rules is what defines a rpg's potential once you've digested the story. So my rpgs fell short because the rules were too shallow or inconcrete. DA series jumps into mind.
The main issue with PnP though is that it is constantly evolving and has so many things to take account for....BG is EXTREMELY simplified and relatively concrete, and I've been slowly working my way through the mechanics, and I really can't find any justifiable reason for why they didn't just implement everything as written. Time constraints maybe (ToB especially)....but in that case..the EE is the perfect opportunity to fix that.
Definitely not. I'm sure PnP fanatics will insist that, by coincidence, everything works better in PnP rules anyway, but i think the devs should just do what they like.
DnD obviously provides good guidelines for game mechanics. I never played PnP or really knew anything about DnD before BG but I found the mechanics quite easy to learn and didn't need to resort to the manual. There's a lot of things I would change though, number one on the list being the rest-based spell system. Never liked it. The mana system in Dragon Age was one of the few things I liked about that game.
I definitely think PnP accuracy should be very important. A level of pragmatism needs to be accepted though. Things like only be able to get spells from resting in inns, having to pray for divine spells, and having to find a specific master for grand mastery, just isn't going to happen.
I do believe changes should be started within the game system that can be more easily made. We don't need a completely new system or to include something that would take a nightmare amount work to introduce. Things I prefer to start with is obviously making more in game practical use of all the stats. Whether it be through saves or maybe even an additional proficiency point here or there. As it stands with any class you can look at 2 or 3 ability scores and determine anyone's usefulness. Say a fighter has 15 strength but 18 wisdom, you can say okay he has only 15 strength but with 18 wisdom he has a little more resistance and saves to spells, or maybe even an additional proficiency point. I'm also hoping they can do something as simply rework the advantages and disadvantages of kits, because as it stands many of them are rather gimped or simply not effective at all.
"Dragon Age" is what happens when you don't stick to PnP rules. The game was ok, but it's no Baldur's Gate. The closer the game gets to PnP the more immersive it will be.
TOEE was much closer to PnP rules than any of the Infinity Engine games. I didn't find it more immersive than Baldur's Gate...
Mostly because it was based in Greyhawk and ported virtually word for word from the original module which is trite and horribly cliche by today's standards.
Had they used an original story like BG did, preferrably set in FR, and not be forced to throw it out no where near complete, it could've easily dethroned the infinity engine as the best DnD series ever.
It was going to be something like NWN, but the module selection was dropped, the creater-kit was dropped, and multiplayer was dropped, all due to unrealistic time constraints Trioka was under at the time.
The engine itself for ToEE is one of the most solid ever made (once it's bugs were fixed), it's more it was simply squandered on a less engaging story (not even really a fault of the module, since it was actually good for it's day).
One of the earliest blurbs about the game was that it was just the first in a line of PnP-ported modules that would be released, and allow users to make their own content to play with their friends.....but it was never mentioned again afterward...so imagine my disappointment when the game finally comes out.
I'm not surprised, if you make a video game too similar to PnP you'll alienate a lot of the more "regular" gamers. I know from personal experience that I considered buying it, but ultimately decided against it because of that. PnP as an inspiration is great, but with too much rigor I find it detrimental to the experience. Personal opinion of course, but it seems I'm not alone in that...
Hello all, been some time since I last chimed in on a discussion here on the forums. Now, to the topic at hand, @TheGreatKhan makes a really good point. While I am closer to @ZanathKariashi when it comes to mechanics accuracy, TheGreatKhan brings up the OTHER type of accuracy in the rules, that of roleplay accuracy. As I recall (since it has been many years since I played a 2nd edition AD&D pen and paper game), there are many cases in this particular edition of the rules where mechanic bonuses are offset by roleplay limitations. Roleplay rules are VERY hard to implement in a computer game. Take the paladin for instance. In a tabletop game, depending on the offense, a paladin who has fallen can regain the favor of their god, but not only is this not possible (without LOTS of planning ahead of time) in a computer version of the rules, but the ways to fall are also limited by concrete variables that a game engine can detect. While I have not voted in the poll, my opinion is that mechanics accuracy should be maintained to the utmost, keeping in mind that due to the limitations of a computer game roleplay rules (for the most part) can't be implemented.
While most of the changes they did I think are good, but progression on some tables I think could've followed PnP more... And did they ever learn to read the Weapon Proficiency table correctly and not make some of the bonuses be cumulative upon each other or be missing entirely?
Actually in 2nd Edition, falling is permanent. The Complete guide allowed for VERY minor things to be forgiven, which BG already has implemented, since allowing ANY evil action doesn't result in immediate falling, only taking evil paths in hell or letting your rep drop below 8 results in falling. So...if you manage to fall in BG, you were acting in VERY unpaladin/Ranger like behavior and deserve everything you got.
And aside from the Swashbuckler, none of the other kits have roleplaying restrictions. And the swashbuckler could be easily balanced by completely removing backstab, instead of just limiting them to x2.
The wizard slayer would be difficult to implement, since I'm not sure if several of their benefits can be properly implemented at current. There are workarounds of course....
I think it's important to maintain a balanced game that tries hard to be original to the PnP game. But some abilities to not transfer over well and need to be modified to either be weaker or stronger. The problem with the game that I can see is a lot of the kits are either too powerful or not powerful enough to be an option for a PC. I'm not saying that a PC should be able to solo the game with every class and dual/multi-class combination but each kit (not neccesarily each dual/multi class) should be able to contribute some function to a balanced party without becoming 'too powerful'. To meet these ends the game should deviate away from the original PnP.
16+: Mortal Strike once per day. On next attack, if the target has fewer HD then the Kensai, it is instantly slain, no save. Some creatures types or targets with more then 200 hp are immune to this effect. Requires chosen weapon actively equipped or the ability fails.
My answer would have been: "Obey PnP inasmuch as it won't detract from the fun of the game, especially considering there isn't a human DM running the show. Due to this fact, *many* changes must be made. The 'bare minimum' of the changes may end up being substantial."
The "Somewhat" answer best describes my position among those offered, so I went with that one.
Moreover, as for PnP accuracy... Here are a few excerpts from the foreword of ADnD DMG, by David Cook:
******************
"By now, you should be familiar with the rules in the Player's Handbook. You've probably already noticed things you like or things you would have done differently. If you have, congratulations. You've got the spirit every Dungeon Master needs."
"So is there an "official" AD&D game? Yes, but only when there needs to be. "
"Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one. "
********************
So... I think most of us would agree that the BG games have been an excellent DM, no?
I appreciate that Baldur's Gate is working from the basis of 2nd Edition, but there have been many updates to the DnD formula since its conception and I have no issues with adjusting the game to make it more palatable to a wider audience.
There's also the matter of what one expects from PnP and what one expects from CRPG.
The 'obeying/figuring the rules' part, if done in moderation, is an intergral part of the social aspect of PnP games. One goes into it expecting that. However, for a CRPG, the expectation is a bit different. I, for example, want to sit down and get immersed in a bit of (excellent) escapist activity, part of which is to figure out the best tactics *given* the rules.
Maybe someone else can say this better... Those two are very different kinds of fun in my mind.
Comments
unless they go full out FPS/TPS, it'll never be skill-based.
Hell, besides Little Wars, I'm actually having trouble thinking of a skill-based table-top game system (and even that only applied to using the artillery troops).
You are NOT your character, your character is his skills, training, equipment, and stats, you can tell him what to do, but if he doesn't have the actual skill to do it in-character it or his opponent is similarly or better skilled fails, aside from random twists of fate....it's just an enforced part of roleplaying. Otherwise your characters would ALWAYS be killed by the first enemy you encounter, because they're better then you in every possible way.
Even in skill based games, the ENEMY is simulated, otherwise you'll be getting drilled with perfect head-shots every time they pull the trigger. And if you happen to suck at games like that, you'll die horribly.
Using a dice system levels the playing field, and gives even hopelessly outmatched characters at least a tiny, though VERY unlikely, chance of winning.
I think that adherence to PnP rules is important to the quality of the games in the sense that it improves them in most cases. However, I don't think that it's up to us (what I assume is a minority of BG fans) to expect an alteration of the original developers' vision for the games.
I'm happy making use of any PnP mods so helpfully created by modders. The game designers intended for the BG games to deviate from PnP in many, many ways, and so that's how the games should stay.
When I play games such as this, I like to know that I have complete control of what I am able to do. I feel that when I do something that I should be able to predict the result. In cases where I cannot predict the result I don't like to take the risk.
In Baldur's Gate, individual random checks determine a significant number of things in the short term. What I dislike about this is that in a number of cases there is no way to bypass the inherent risk. In some cases there is a clear winner, but in other cases a couple of lucky rolls can completely determine a fight. From reading around here it is a simple coded restriction that prevents enemies from one-shotting you at the beginning of the game.
While one might see the appeal in the learning curve of "It's a cruel world you grow into", but it's hard for anyone to deny that it would be extremely frustrating for someone to get killed by a lucky gibberling, or for an example outside of the D&D mechanics, an ambush in the short trip to the storyline's advertised safe haven.
I do disagree that the game would have to be converted into a 3rd/1st person shooter in order to create a more skill-based game. Mechanics such as telegraphed abilities or 'skillshots' have existed for a long time and are really suited to games that function similarly in controls. Abilities that rely on randomness now can be changed into abilities that instead rely on conditions that the player may or may not set up (PW: Kill, Save denial vs. weak enemies already do this to some extent), etc. etc.
Off-topic - In LoL they actually removed dodge chance from the game completely. The designers are in the process of slowly removing all short-term random effects from the game.
You're misunderstanding my point. Yes, a character is an extension of the player, in that you determine their goals and how they approach something and you in most cases even get to pick their base stats and how they grow, but that is all the input you get. That's how the game system is designed.
Simulated combat is every table-top game ever made, you literally being your character is LARP.
What you want will never happen, because the rules were NEVER designed to be played that way. You might as well go play a different game entirely.
But that's neither here nor there. Now that we're two pages in and the arguments have started, I guess I'll explain my stance on the issue, in case anyone's interested. I don't think adherence to PnP rules is remotely important. You can tell that from my poll vote. I do think that sometimes they're better than what Baldur's Gate currently has in place. PnP druids are a great example. They get lots of cool peripheral benefits that make them pretty awesome, and their spell selection is actually pretty good. On the other hand, their Creeping Doom spell is a great example of why the rules are flat-out flawed in many places (seriously, the PnP version of Creeping Doom is basically a no-save-1-hit-kill to everything within 10 feet of you unless they're specifically prepared for it). All-in-all, I think Baldur's Gate is a much better game because of the things it's changed, even if not all of the changes are positive. There are ways I would like to see Baldur's Gate brought in line with PnP, not because 2E D&D is a perfect (or even halfway decent) system, but because there were some good ideas that Baldur's Gate missed. But I don't see any inherent value in adhering to PnP, or any inherent flaws in deviating from it. Maybe it's my nature as an extreme house-ruler, but my reasoning is basically "take the good, leave the bad." And there is no shortage of bad in 2E D&D.
Infinity Engine is the same sort of thing. It starts with an excellent rule set, and modifies it both as a CRPG and for the specific wants of the designers and story tellers. I do think a lot of mods and recent patches are getting a little silly with too many new classes and kits mucking up the system, and I'll always wish they'd added more of the secondary bonuses associated with scores (wisdom giving bonuses against charm, intelligence helping against illusions, etc); but overall I'm very happy with the product.
I do believe changes should be started within the game system that can be more easily made. We don't need a completely new system or to include something that would take a nightmare amount work to introduce. Things I prefer to start with is obviously making more in game practical use of all the stats. Whether it be through saves or maybe even an additional proficiency point here or there. As it stands with any class you can look at 2 or 3 ability scores and determine anyone's usefulness. Say a fighter has 15 strength but 18 wisdom, you can say okay he has only 15 strength but with 18 wisdom he has a little more resistance and saves to spells, or maybe even an additional proficiency point. I'm also hoping they can do something as simply rework the advantages and disadvantages of kits, because as it stands many of them are rather gimped or simply not effective at all.
Had they used an original story like BG did, preferrably set in FR, and not be forced to throw it out no where near complete, it could've easily dethroned the infinity engine as the best DnD series ever.
It was going to be something like NWN, but the module selection was dropped, the creater-kit was dropped, and multiplayer was dropped, all due to unrealistic time constraints Trioka was under at the time.
The engine itself for ToEE is one of the most solid ever made (once it's bugs were fixed), it's more it was simply squandered on a less engaging story (not even really a fault of the module, since it was actually good for it's day).
One of the earliest blurbs about the game was that it was just the first in a line of PnP-ported modules that would be released, and allow users to make their own content to play with their friends.....but it was never mentioned again afterward...so imagine my disappointment when the game finally comes out.
Now, to the topic at hand, @TheGreatKhan makes a really good point. While I am closer to @ZanathKariashi when it comes to mechanics accuracy, TheGreatKhan brings up the OTHER type of accuracy in the rules, that of roleplay accuracy. As I recall (since it has been many years since I played a 2nd edition AD&D pen and paper game), there are many cases in this particular edition of the rules where mechanic bonuses are offset by roleplay limitations. Roleplay rules are VERY hard to implement in a computer game. Take the paladin for instance. In a tabletop game, depending on the offense, a paladin who has fallen can regain the favor of their god, but not only is this not possible (without LOTS of planning ahead of time) in a computer version of the rules, but the ways to fall are also limited by concrete variables that a game engine can detect. While I have not voted in the poll, my opinion is that mechanics accuracy should be maintained to the utmost, keeping in mind that due to the limitations of a computer game roleplay rules (for the most part) can't be implemented.
Actually in 2nd Edition, falling is permanent. The Complete guide allowed for VERY minor things to be forgiven, which BG already has implemented, since allowing ANY evil action doesn't result in immediate falling, only taking evil paths in hell or letting your rep drop below 8 results in falling. So...if you manage to fall in BG, you were acting in VERY unpaladin/Ranger like behavior and deserve everything you got.
And aside from the Swashbuckler, none of the other kits have roleplaying restrictions. And the swashbuckler could be easily balanced by completely removing backstab, instead of just limiting them to x2.
The wizard slayer would be difficult to implement, since I'm not sure if several of their benefits can be properly implemented at current. There are workarounds of course....
The "Somewhat" answer best describes my position among those offered, so I went with that one.
Moreover, as for PnP accuracy... Here are a few excerpts from the foreword of ADnD DMG, by David Cook:
******************
"By now, you should be familiar with the rules in the Player's Handbook. You've probably already noticed things you like or things you would have done differently. If you have, congratulations. You've got the spirit every Dungeon Master needs."
"So is there an "official" AD&D game? Yes, but only when there needs to be. "
"Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one. "
********************
So... I think most of us would agree that the BG games have been an excellent DM, no?
2E is a beautiful system. Part of its beauty is the freedom to improvise and adapt for a variety of tastes and styles.
The 'obeying/figuring the rules' part, if done in moderation, is an intergral part of the social aspect of PnP games. One goes into it expecting that. However, for a CRPG, the expectation is a bit different. I, for example, want to sit down and get immersed in a bit of (excellent) escapist activity, part of which is to figure out the best tactics *given* the rules.
Maybe someone else can say this better... Those two are very different kinds of fun in my mind.