| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
| Hmm... did I go overboard? |
|
Heh... I posted this on the offical D&D forums. I think I'm going to get massacred over it. Oh well.
------------------------------
[r a n t]
I remember the days of D&D where the point to fighting was to win as swiftly and brutally efficiently as possible... where if you found a longsword +5 and used it to slay a demon people congradulated you instead of complained that you outdamage them.
There were no delusions (at least when I started playing with a group back in 85) of equality among the classes. Fighters were strongest, mages were awesome if you played them smart (even if everything basically took half-damage and hold/death spells NEVER worked), and a x5 backstab was a terrible thing to behold.
It seems from several posts I read now that opinions still range from "Kill the creature as fast as possible with as little loss to life and limb as possible... get on with the story." to "Battles must go to the last hit point or you are obviously overpowered." ... like the opinions always have. However, it seems that the "Oh my god! You killed a <insert creature>! Only munchkins can kill <insert creature>! Make a new character and repent!".
DESPITE said creature being in the core monster manual and despite the hours of playtesting (argueable) put into assigning to a challenge rating that will deplete roughly 20% of the resources of a party of equivilent encounter level which indicates to me that yes indeed... the creature is firmly defeatable.
While I do think that much of the optimize character board is well... overboard... and that 400 damage on a single strike is too much (not if it's once a day, mind you... 400 damage isn't that hard to do over the course of a day for another high level character by way of power attacks, critical hits, and cleaves) I think the extreme opposite camp ... that if you're winning consistantly you're doing something wrong ( :confused: ) is missing a valid aspect of the game: Super-Heroism.
Ok, you want to see Arnold impaled, burned, bashed, and mangled in the final battle with the T1000, sure. It adds drama. It would add LESS drama if he had been smashed up by everything else in the movie as well... no, what makes it a climatic battle is the fact that for the rest of the movie he is untouchable, invincible.
Why hold D&D to a different standard? PCs do what normal people can only dream of. They survive being hit by fireballs and stepped on by dinosaurs and being eaten by purple worms. That skeleton which you cannot kill with your pitchfork who will slay your entire family is merely a smash with a heavy mace to a PC. If it weren't there would be no game.
And there is a game component to RPGs. People who say there are no victors in D&D are incorrect: Victory is achieved when you play a believable and fleshed out character who embodies the concept of the character you set out to create. If you want to play Tommy the Rat and retire at level 3 after ratting out the head of the thieves guild to the city guard and live off the luxaries you 'liberate' from the guildmaster's townhouse... you have won. If you want to play a paladin who charges forward on his noble steed and makes evil shake in dismay and gasp out "Look how awful goodness is..." and explode violently you are every bit as entitled as Tommy the Rat.
Or 'Huburt', who is really the exiled prince Hecan and who wears the garb of a simple traveling bard while trying to muster the allies and friends of his father, who was brutally assassinated by the dark lord Goofimon, so he might retake the throne and restore piece and order to the world. Little does he realize that his father was corrupt underneath, being the dread demon Demongui, and that Goofimon is really Paladicar... who is pretending to be evil and who has exiled you so that you might muster up your fathers evil allies and expose them to him... so that the forces of light may strike and end evil once and for all. Except it turns out that the angel that Paladicar is (unknowingly) working for is the REAL Demongui who will use the elimination of all the other evil powers to raise his own stature and rule the world.
I remember when having an unstoppable team of heroes was a good thing and not evidence of something going horribly wrong or a terrible DM.
I remember when if given a choice between Legolas and that archer guy from She-Ra you chose Legolas and played him with as much or as little flavor as you wished instead of assuming that since mechanically the guy from She-Ra is weaker he must be in some way more roleplayable.
It really is just as fun to roleplay the Tick as it is to roleplay Arthur. Being powerful doesn't make a PC any less a character... being run by someone not interested in roleplaying does.
[ / rant ]
In short if the other characters don't have enough to do in combat the DM is unable to handle such contingencies as someone deciding to use the most intelligent method of attack. It is his fault, not yours, that the others feel left out.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:06 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
I did not realize this was an issue!
When I was playing a lot and the party I was with waded through a sea of baddies w/o taking a scratch the reaction of the party was joy at getting lucky ... later over a beer we might speculate that the DM had under estimated our prowess, but that was a distinct sub current. And for each time we waltzed through un scratched there had to be three times we were ripped to dog meat.
I guess there is such a thing as game balance in D&D but it comes from the DM making the goals the players picked achievable ... but not too easily. If the party is a living walking chipper shredder then it is up to the DM to either a) up the strength of the encounters or b) make the challenges brain based as opposed to brawn.
I recall your parable about the bard being, most likely, the most powerful class of all. A properly timed song or story can bring kingdoms crashing down!
Good rant Xen.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:37 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
I agree. High-powered characters can be fun to roleplay if done right. Boring is boring, no matter what your character's level is. It's the DM's job to gauge the capabilities of his/her players. And it's the players' job to keep the DM jumping to try and stay one step ahead. That's part of the fun!
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:27 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
It's a concern of mine. Too many new players to the hobby have grown up on EverQuest and other MMORPG where the idea is to make every class exactly the same strength in every situation apparantly.
I've always seen D&D as a chance to play Heracles, Beowulf, Hector, Arthur, or Merlin. Or even tag team all of them into a party.  There are other far more realistic systems for playing the 'peasant hero' in my opinion.
It's gotten so bad that people bash D&D novels because the heroes don't die which isn't realistic based on the challenges they face. They complain the heroes are unbeatable or perfect. few stop to consider that a NOVEL is a little different than a game. If a hero in a novel loses they're probably dead... and ressurrection magic, while common enough in D&D, is largely ignored by any novelist attempting to be serious. Epic battles to the death against arch-enemies wouldn't be anywhere near as ... well... epic... if the hero just had to have a cleric run by and scream "CLEAR!" *choom chump* and bring him back to life.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:29 am |
|
|
konny666
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 219
Location: Babylon 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
I've always seen D&D as a chance to play Heracles, Beowulf, Hector, Arthur, or Merlin. Or even tag team all of them into a party. There are other far more realistic systems for playing the 'peasant hero' in my opinion.
Heh, like GURPS!
quote:
It's gotten so bad that people bash D&D novels because the heroes don't die which isn't realistic based on the challenges they face. They complain the heroes are unbeatable or perfect. few stop to consider that a NOVEL is a little different than a game. If a hero in a novel loses they're probably dead... and ressurrection magic, while common enough in D&D, is largely ignored by any novelist attempting to be serious. Epic battles to the death against arch-enemies wouldn't be anywhere near as ... well... epic... if the hero just had to have a cleric run by and scream "CLEAR!" *choom chump* and bring him back to life.
I've also favored the "novel" approach to role-playing. When I dm'ed I tended to prefer 'fudging' die rolls, rather than letting the player(s) die right at the climax and having to come up with some silly explanation. Unfair (to who? the NPCs?) perhaps but I think it made things more fun. It was low-magic Dragonlance too (post cataclysm, pre war of the lance) so there really wasn't any Resurrection magic to save their asses anyways... |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:41 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
Running a 'this is the really real world... there ain't no coming back... there ain't no coming back!!' style campaign requires a rethink of the game.
First off, instant death magics are right out.
If you can die instantly based on the fall of a single dice you NEED the ability to come back with the same ease... otherwise mages become even more powerful than they already are, and creatures such as Bodak (who are nasty enough anyways) get taken to all new levels of difficulty.
Using the sample 'reserve' rules from the Unearthed Arcana sourcebook that's due out soon I engineered an entirely new system of health and healing that I might try in a campaign soon. It revolutionizes the novel approach of doing things and takes the focus away from the need for magic for non-magic using classes (although it wouldn't be D&D with magic swords for the fighters so magic swords are still in).
I've also rewritten the challenge rating system to take the emphasis off combat and more towards character... and more towards attendance and fun. Combat still gives you a ton of experience points but there's just as much non-combat experience to be had. Basically, doing things that your class can do will grant experience.
It's almost a 4th edition...
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:07 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I have to disagree. I agree on not balancing. I do not believe in balance, and thats why I'm not a big fan of d20. It seems like a big push in th balance dirrection.
I disagree on overpowered characters that face no challenge. Thats why I hate NWN, Diablo, DS, and the rest of those games whose theory of fun seems to be easy.
Games used to be made to challenge players (RPGs were made to challenge the mind, games like Super Mario were made to challenge your fingers). Now there made to keep your eyes busy while your mind drifts off to other things. I recently tried playing DS again but couldn't. If I am never challenged what is there to interest me? If I never have to put a thought into anything beyond "what item should I drop", then I might as well read a kids book that explains the prime colors or the alphabet.
RANT
I remember when I had to put some thought into character creation. I remember challanging battles that got me nervous or worried. I remember puzzles that took hours to solve, and I would have to think about possible solutions when not playing. I remember games being a challenge, and I remember when rpgs provided that challenge. I remember fighting battles over and over until I finally found a strategy that worked. I remember feeling a sense of achievment, a sense of victory, a sense of accomplishment. I remember being challenged and overcoming it and passing the test. Wading through hordes of enemies without a thought of worry and fear was impossible. Playing without thinking was immpossible. Now it is the norm. It is the pull of the unsophisticated masses. The tyrrany of the center. The same pull that keeps teeny-boppers topping the charts. A cry from the masses that says my dollar will go to the person that does not challenge my mind. Easy is key.
I believe this is the reason why europe and n. america will loose their footing to countries like India. Indians activley pursue challenge and push themselves. They are overcoming a cast system and reveling in freedoms. Indians realise that the more you are challenged, the more obsticles you overcome, the better and stronger you are in the end. I am not happy with the future I see for my country and Europe, but I will be glad to see Indians get what we have by working hard and pushing themselves.
That might not seem relevant to a rpg system but it is perfectly relevant in my mind. In order to be that overpowered character, you should of had to overcome near immposible challenges, busted your ass, and achieved the unachievable to get that way. The only way you should of became overpowered is by being the best, by mastering a system and bending it to your will. By being smarter and more persistent than others who play. And the rest that can't cut the mustard are removed from competition and go to a cutscenes with a tombstone that says r.i.p. and implies you are not able to withstand this challenge. You are not good enough. You have failed the test.
that is what happens to me when I play a combat FPS. I am not good enough, I could not face the challenge the developers gave me. But that is not what happens when someone picks up the "Best RPG of 03" KoToR. Anyone can breeze through that game without ever having to reload. Same with DS.
If you are looking for a challenge then RPG is not the genre to turn to.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:58 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
I wrote an editorial about the lack of challenge in CRPGs... I don't think I published it though because I did a little looking and found a few puzzles left.
Most of the puzzles in the recent games are just stupid, though. Like this one jumping/switch puzzle in Hoardes of the Underdark. Or the endless forest maze in Icewind Dale 2.
It is an evolution towards the middle... it's true.
Overpowered characters, such as any character you play in a CRPG at the end of things, can be challenging to ...well... challenge. Most game devolpers don't bother: The best make your time at the top brief and the worst make your time at the top meaningless by making the end-game monsters able to kill you in two hits, just like the goblins did at the beginning of the game.
I call it Bigger Sticks vs Super-Rat syndrome (BSVSR). If you have 10 hit points and have a weapon that does 5 vs enemies who have 10 hit points and hit you for one... at at the end you have 10000 hit points, have a weapon that does 5000 damage and face enemies who have 10,000 hit points and hit you for 1000... you have the exact damn game!
Final Fantasy games are notorious for this.
That said my rant was mostly aimed at the attitude that it's wrong to want to be powerful. I think that's a silly restriction to be placed on a fantasy game. Making a character that you want to scream "Ilyana!!!!" and die in a column of light and explosion that breaks the world shouldn't be bashed any more than making a character who goes "Awesome! I found 1000 gp! I live comfortably for the rest of my life. The end."
I have no solution. If you have powerful characters a game becomes easy. if you remain weak the entire time you will die to escalating challenges. If your challenges never escalate a CRPG becomes stagnant.
I freely admit to getting stuck solving puzzles in Bard's Tale 3 in the ice world. Combined with the endless battles every step which grated on my nerves I never did manage to finish the game. Games just aren't that hard any more... imagine the flaming in a forum if there were a game where every level had a riddle and the answer wasn't written on a note somewhere within two rooms and able to be found by holding 'tab'.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:30 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I guess its the difference between say Dune, were he ends up godlike and unstoppable, and A Game of Thrones were everyone has a good chance of dying. Dune was a good book, but I lost interest in the end. A Game of Thrones are good books and I'm usually more interested in the end.
I guess it all comes down taste. If you pay your dues and become over[powered through strife and struggle and feel you deserve to be overpowered then why not?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:27 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
... imagine the flaming in a forum if there were a game where every level had a riddle and the answer wasn't written on a note somewhere within two rooms and able to be found by holding 'tab'.
You mean like Might and Magic 3? 
"Personally I like the Golly Gee, lookit ma, I found 1,000 gp! I win!!" scale. It is somehow more ... real? ... no that's not the word. It is more accessable. I (the flesh and blood version of Lintra) can not really picture having god like abilities. *shrug*
But I do have to admit to enjoying a good high powered romp as well.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:58 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
MM3 is an old game. It represents the thing that modern CPRGs evolved away from. Somewhere the decision was made that if you had to reload a hundred times and agonize over a riddle for 10 hours you weren't having fun.
It's a valid point. However, some people like to agonize just a LITTLE (I'm like that. I don't mind an hour figuring something out whereas a game where I have no chance to find the answer annoys me) so the removal of said riddles and challenges is also the wrong decision.
Even the greatest or most popular hits of the past decade show this decision.
Fallout 1 and 2... great games, people loved them... easy as sin.
Torment: Loved it. Read you could regenerate. Maxed con, high wisdom for the experience bonus, destroyed game. Easy as sin.
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2. Great games, but difficult or challenging? Please. The asylum in BG2 was the funnest part.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:35 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Fo 2 was my first FO. I didn't have internet then, or any of the game patches. There was some challenging combat, and the biggest challenge was not having a walkthrough. I had no idea what lvl skill I needed to do this or that, or what lvl ability I needed to do this or that. I had no idea what effects (or affects, I suck at telling those words apart) my decisions had on the game. I had no idea how to build a good character, or how the formulas worked. Basically I had no idea. I never beat FO2 but I played the hell out of it a various different times.
The times I played it pre-internet it was very challenging to me for different reasons. I basically did everything wrong. My last time I read up on how to build a good character to get the right feats ext. I also turned to walkthroughs when stuck or just wanting to know what certain decisions did without having to play through and reload doing it anothjer way.
, rinse repeat.
Probably the same with wiz 7. That game gave me the hardest time pre-internet. I spent a lot of money on the sirteck help line seeing that a lot of the puzzles I found unsolvable. And I was infinitly more patient then.
Fall Out is easy if you know whats going on. If you don't its pretty challenging. But that is part of the fun for me, trying to figure out and exploit a game system.
Even games like realms of arkania and darklands were challenging only in the beginning really, then got easier and easier as you played. I'm having a hard time thinking of an rpg that was challenging throughout. ToEE?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:00 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
I played FO2 without the internet as well, and it was also my first Fallout. Combat ended suddenly and brutally and often with a reload, but it does even when you know exactly what you're doing - character wise.
To me, reloading a dozen times because slavers keep intercepting me on the way to the Den isn't challenging. It's repetitive or frustrating.
No, challenges are defeatable by skill and knowledge. Battles you win by luck are mere inconveniences... and there are a lot of random encounters in FO2 that are like that. There are a lot where you just roll your eyes and reload at certaint points in the game (going to the NCR wearing metal plate and getting intercepted by a dozen rocket launcher and minigun using supermutants comes to mind).
With that definition of 'challenging' in my mind I'd have to agree that ToEE was one such game. No battle was truly easy but if you know D&D and know CRPGs in general you shouldn't lose any of the fights... but you'll have to work for some of your victories.
The only battle I lost was against the Balor. I only tried once, though (time was running out to submit my Review and I still had two more parties to complete the game with. (Both other times my rogue simply stole the key from the Balor and ran). My room-mate beat him by summoning the bugged versions of the guardians from the skull that last forever. He was proud of this fact whereas I rolled my eyes. Sending a gang of nearly unbeatable monsters against a nearly unbeatable monster may be tactically sound but it's hardly a challenge. Revel in your victory... you worked to get that gang of monsters... but don't be particularly proud about it.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:12 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
ToEE I found to be pretty challenging through out, but then I did not exit the dungeon and rest up very often ... so my party was pretty worn down for a lot of the fights ... the exception being the elemental nodes. Air was easy, too easy, so my I got my butt handed to me on earth (the next node I went to).
As to other challenges ... no RPGs have really given me a hard time since Ultima 5 and the Worlds of Xeen. This is not to say I haven't enjoyed them!
But I do have to admit my fondest memories of games are the ones where I had to claw my way to the top never quite sure if I was going to survive the next encounter.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:23 pm |
|
|
Guybrush Threepwood
High Emperor
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 500
Location: Oklahoma |
Hmm....my first rpg-like game was the very first Zork. I found it to be quite challenging. I enjoyed the riddles but it was hard as heck not to be knifed or axed or something or other by various critters in that dungeon. I like games that are challening...but I also enjoy roleplaying a character. I think alignment is mostly unrealistic. Thats my main beef about AD&D Rules. You shouldn't FORCE someone to roleplay a certain way. Alignment doesn't make alot of sense either. People change...no one stays the same. And I think there are different ways to roleplay various alignment restrictive classes. Paladins druids and clerics just to name a few. Also druids and rangers make no sense. They wear LEATHER armor. Leather is made from dead animals...the very beings they put their life on the line to protect. Also monks...lawful doesn't make sense. Just because they are disciplined doesn't mean they don't do unlawful things. Depending on what teachings they follow they could be very chaotic. I just think alignment is rather stupid.
_________________
"What are you gonna do? Release the dogs?! Or the bees?! Or dogs with bees in their mouth so that when they bark they shoot bees at you?" - Homer Simpson |
|
Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:33 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
