Doctor Sbaitso
SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,348
Magic mapping.
Part of the problem with non combat magic is that it makes creating obstacles without giant glaring plotholes rather difficult. It's already bad enough when you need to surrender to the guards you could kill, find the keys to a door you can break, and pass through a checkpoint because your character can't navigate a 1 foot ditch on the side of the road. Throw in things like invisibility, levitation, and so forth, and it becomes trivially easy to circumvent almost any challenge. Wizards aren't top tier in DnD just because they can kill shit. They can also replicate all the skills the ranger, thief and bard have and then some.
Consider how many quests in an elder scrolls game you ought to be able to trivialize with a charm person spell (or how stupid a game like Diablo is when you can teleport through an entire floor in about 5 seconds).
Of course, in a game built around wizards you could compensate for this sort of thing, but most games features wizards alongside the plebian warriors and rogues, and non combat magic would just make them terribly useless.
Traps, huh? Sounds like violence to me.Oh, but your wrong. There already are a few RPGs where completely or nearly combatless playthroughs are possible. In Quest for Glory series, for example, if you're playing a mage or thief 80% to 100% of your challenges are non-combat.Lol dude you can't avoid combat in RPGs
I even have a sorta design doc somewhere of a dugeon crawl, built completely around auxiliary mechanics like traps, stealth, survival and some very limited magic. It's some pity it's never going to be made into actual game.
Of course it is, it's just very one sided.Traps, huh? Sounds like violence to me.Oh, but your wrong. There already are a few RPGs where completely or nearly combatless playthroughs are possible. In Quest for Glory series, for example, if you're playing a mage or thief 80% to 100% of your challenges are non-combat.Lol dude you can't avoid combat in RPGs
I even have a sorta design doc somewhere of a dugeon crawl, built completely around auxiliary mechanics like traps, stealth, survival and some very limited magic. It's some pity it's never going to be made into actual game.
Violence =/= combat
Torture is very violent. Yet no one in their right mind would call that a fight.
I love how there's a spell for doing this.Awaken: This could be used to wake up sleeping NPCs.
Well, it's there for realism. In real life, you cast this spell by grasping and shaking the target while incanting the magic words, "OI, YOU, WAKE UP!".I love how there's a spell for doing this.
Most people I know just use the method of shouting really loud.
I love how there's a spell for doing this.Awaken: This could be used to wake up sleeping NPCs.
Most people I know just use the method of shouting really loud.
Even if we accept that twisted logic, the point is to avoid a trap, not to engage it - thus, no combat for a good player at least.Of course it is, it's just very one sided.Traps, huh? Sounds like violence to me.Oh, but your wrong. There already are a few RPGs where completely or nearly combatless playthroughs are possible. In Quest for Glory series, for example, if you're playing a mage or thief 80% to 100% of your challenges are non-combat.Lol dude you can't avoid combat in RPGs
I even have a sorta design doc somewhere of a dugeon crawl, built completely around auxiliary mechanics like traps, stealth, survival and some very limited magic. It's some pity it's never going to be made into actual game.
Violence =/= combat
Torture is very violent. Yet no one in their right mind would call that a fight.
What if an enemy runs into the trap?Even if we accept that twisted logic, the point is to avoid a trap, not to engage it - thus, no combat for a good player at least.Of course it is, it's just very one sided.Traps, huh? Sounds like violence to me.Oh, but your wrong. There already are a few RPGs where completely or nearly combatless playthroughs are possible. In Quest for Glory series, for example, if you're playing a mage or thief 80% to 100% of your challenges are non-combat.Lol dude you can't avoid combat in RPGs
I even have a sorta design doc somewhere of a dugeon crawl, built completely around auxiliary mechanics like traps, stealth, survival and some very limited magic. It's some pity it's never going to be made into actual game.
Violence =/= combat
Torture is very violent. Yet no one in their right mind would call that a fight.
Nothing. Enemies for such a design to be plausible should be immune to any kind of harm. They could be incorporeal (ghosts), extremely resilient (phlebotinum golems) or some kind of lovecraftian creatures (too powerful to handle) etc.What if an enemy runs into the trap?Even if we accept that twisted logic, the point is to avoid a trap, not to engage it - thus, no combat for a good player at least.Of course it is, it's just very one sided.Traps, huh? Sounds like violence to me.Oh, but your wrong. There already are a few RPGs where completely or nearly combatless playthroughs are possible. In Quest for Glory series, for example, if you're playing a mage or thief 80% to 100% of your challenges are non-combat.Lol dude you can't avoid combat in RPGs
I even have a sorta design doc somewhere of a dugeon crawl, built completely around auxiliary mechanics like traps, stealth, survival and some very limited magic. It's some pity it's never going to be made into actual game.
Violence =/= combat
Torture is very violent. Yet no one in their right mind would call that a fight.
Sounds like enemies that would easily engage you in combat.Nothing. Enemies for such a design to be plausible should be immune to any kind of harm. They could be incorporeal (ghosts), extremely resilient (phlebotinum golems) or some kind of lovecraftian creatures (too powerful to handle) etc.What if an enemy runs into the trap?Even if we accept that twisted logic, the point is to avoid a trap, not to engage it - thus, no combat for a good player at least.Of course it is, it's just very one sided.Traps, huh? Sounds like violence to me.Oh, but your wrong. There already are a few RPGs where completely or nearly combatless playthroughs are possible. In Quest for Glory series, for example, if you're playing a mage or thief 80% to 100% of your challenges are non-combat.Lol dude you can't avoid combat in RPGs
I even have a sorta design doc somewhere of a dugeon crawl, built completely around auxiliary mechanics like traps, stealth, survival and some very limited magic. It's some pity it's never going to be made into actual game.
Violence =/= combat
Torture is very violent. Yet no one in their right mind would call that a fight.
Nah, they'd just devour you in a matter of seconds....
Sounds like enemies that would easily engage you in combat.
So I guess you can't avoid combat.Nah, they'd just devour you in a matter of seconds....
Sounds like enemies that would easily engage you in combat.
Wrong again - you must avoid it as it's automatic gameover. Just like with the traps, only worse.So I guess you can't avoid combat.Nah, they'd just devour you in a matter of seconds....
Sounds like enemies that would easily engage you in combat.
---GREAT LIST IS GREAT---
All in all, Ultima 7's magic system manages to get your imagination going, but fails to deliver in several instances. Many of the spells are just aesthetic, like fireworks, or weather. Quite a few, like telekinesis, could have been useful if dungeon exploration was a bigger aspect of the game (and if the dungeons themselves were worth exploring). Frequently, the more exotic spells are only useful in a very specific instance of the plot, which makes them more of a mcguffin than a spell. Some of the spells could have been give more use if certain aspects of the game were systematized. For instance, if the game kept track of how well liked you are, the charm spell could have been very useful outside combat. In the end, many of the non combat spells in this game are as useful as baking bread. So they end up being more of a setting element than an actual ability.
Well, I wanted to tackle a few more games, but this took long enough. I will try to tackle Ultima 8 next, but I need to go to sleep now, so maybe tomorrow.
Edit: I posted an incomplete version earlier. Sorry about that, only realized it when I posted this one.
The thing is, it doesn't matter how strong wizards are compared to the challenges, what matters is how strong they are compared to other options. If a wizard can beguile people, sneak around, and smash doors nearly as well as a charismatic leader, a rogue and a barbarian, why have those characters at all instead of just a pile of wizards? OTOH, if the wizard does those things so much less effectively you really do need the other classes, what purpose do those spells serve? Nobody needs an invisibility spell that doesn't work. You can justify having a wizard in the party by having him fill roles other classes can't (like say, identifying magical items or something) but there's no way to justify having spells that duplicate the skills of other (potential) party members AND those party members. One or the other is going to be better.
Reminds me of all the hybrid casters in EQ back in the day being completely unwanted because their buffs didn't stack with those of their pure caster counterparts and their fighting skills were subpar as well, so they had no role to fill. Not much different from 2nd edition DnD in that regard (back when paladins didn't get cool bonus abilities and rangers had really shitty rogue skills.)
Challenge of the Five Realms IMO handled reagents the best: reagents were required to learn and cast the spell, but were destroyed only when (if) one of your characters failed at learning it. Another option was to create a magic ring with several charges of the spell. This destroyed the reagents regardless of success, but casting from a ring had an advantage of not using mana (which was rather slow to regenerate, and the main quest had a time limit).1) Reagants. As part of the AD&D system that Ultima closely followed, reagents being required for magic seemed like a great idea. However, it results in hording and being stingy with magic instead of feeling like you had it as a powerful tool. This was lampshaded with the Ring of Reagents in the Silver Seed, which removed the need for reagents and had magic only use mana. Ultima 8 had a crazy (kind of cool) approach, where there were three different magic systems to juggle, one using reagents to cast, one using reagents to create single-use totems and another using totems which had infinite uses without reagents. However, I think the best approach was in Ultima 9 (PERISH THE THOUGHT!), where reagents were required and used to first put a spell into your spellbook, after which they simply cost mana to cast. This more aligned with 1E DnD, where new spells could be researched or even created by the player, but could often cost very specific ingredients for the learning.
I don't see a problem here. It makes magic non-mundane and balanced. IF you need a flip switched, let party archer shoot it, or rogue climb there somehow and switch it. And if they ALL fail, then it's time for mage to save their peasant assess.Ultimately, both reagent and Vancian casting make non-combat casting difficult to implement. You either learn silly spells that might only apply once in a blue moon, or you burn valuable materials simply because you couldn't find a way to flip a switch across a canyon.
So it's combat against an omnipowerful enemy.Wrong again - you must avoid it as it's automatic gameover. Just like with the traps, only worse.So I guess you can't avoid combat.Nah, they'd just devour you in a matter of seconds....
Sounds like enemies that would easily engage you in combat.
*this is my last post on the subject, derailing has gone far enough.
So it's combat against an omnipowerful enemy.