What most RPGs do wrong...

[Wyrmlord III]

...and what Grimrock did exactly right.

If you become more proficient with a warhammer, why wouldn't you also be more proficient with an axe or a flail? It's totally counter-intuitive to think that a man who wields enough force to regularly kill people with a warhammer suddenly can't swing his weapon properly if he switches to an axe.

Yet, that is how most RPGs do it - you allot skill points or proficiency points to a particular weapon and become stronger with that weapon only, and lose out on becoming stronger with weapons where you did not allot those proficiency points.

Grimrock's basic idea of having skill points affect attributes like Strength made sense in this regard. You increase your Axe skill. Your Strength goes up. Now you also do more damage with a Sword. Improving one skill leads to improvement in related skills - as it should.

Of course, point-buy is still silly in its own way. Like in Fallout, where you become a genius with Energy Weapons without ever having seen one. So I still prefer the use-based system of Betrayal at Krondor or Wizardry (partially use-based) or TES. I think the perfect system would be one that combines use-based systems with Grimrock's skills-affect-attributes system. Think about it - increased usage of persuasion leads to increased diplomacy skill, which leads to increased charisma. It makes more sense - how else did you become more charismatic other than by trying to develop it?

DraQ, I am tagging you, because you are the only one who reads this sort of stuff.

 

[Renegen]

Age of Decadence does that too. Dagger skill improves sword skill and vice versa. It's a nice touch of realism, but I have to admit it confused me at first.

 

[attackfighter]

wyrmlord's retarded once again

strength plays some role but not all, simply being strong isn't enough to wield a flail without clumsily clubbing yourself in the face with it

that's why proficiency should be determined by both attribute and skill stats

as for dagger improving sword skill... that's even dumber than Wyrmlord's claims. would some guy with a dagger be parrying his opponent? would he be bashing an armoured foe with the pommel of his dagger? would a swordsman be as intent on evading and grappling as a dagger wielder? the two weapons aren't meant to be used in the same way, and also a sword skill should be split into two-handed and one-handed variants for proper emotional engagement

 

[KidBoogie]

wyrmlord's retarded once again

strength plays some role but not all, simply being strong isn't enough to wield a flail without clumsily clubbing yourself in the face with it

that's why proficiency should be determined by both attribute and skill stats

as for dagger improving sword skill... that's even dumber than Wyrmlord's claims. would some guy with a dagger be parrying his opponent? would he be bashing an armoured foe with the pommel of his dagger? would a swordsman be as intent on evading and grappling as a dagger wielder? the two weapons aren't meant to be used in the same way, and also a sword skill should be split into two-handed and one-handed variants for proper emotional engagement

eh, depends on the game. if you character runs up and flails in the same manner with every weapon then you would think all weapons should be condensed to one skill.

 

[Grimlorn]

...and what Grimrock did exactly right.

If you become more proficient with a warhammer, why wouldn't you also be more proficient with an axe or a flail? It's totally counter-intuitive to think that a man who wields enough force to regularly kill people with a warhammer suddenly can't swing his weapon properly if he switches to an axe.

There is a pretty big difference between boxing with gloves on and off. To be honest you may have the strength to swing those big weapons but you won't have the technique in parrying with those different weapons as the techniques would likely be different to compensate for the different weapons and their strengths and weaknesses. If one weapon is longer than the other then you have different reaches to contend with. I just don't see a two handed warhammer being the same as a two handed axe. Same with a two handed sword. There are just too many variables imo. In AoD I don't think it's very realistic to gain skills in those other weapons, but I understand it's there so you can change weapons for different encounters and not be too weak to switch weapon types.

 

[Telengard]

Weaponry skills by type of weapon was always a bit of an arbitrary system. Lumping all the many different kinds of sword together, from foils to bastard swords, and saying someone was trained in the different fighting styles necessary for all of them, but didn't bother to pick up any training in axes along the way, was always a gamey sort of choice, rather than a realistic one. It's an equally gamey choice to arbitraily say training in shortsword has nothing to do with longswords (with their only difference being hilt length).

But then, it's just as arbitrary, too, to say that fighting is all about the study of the weapon, and not study of the body and movement and the opponent. In that sense, studying any form of combat should, to a lesser degree, be aiding in all forms of combat.

Grimrock's idea of attributes increase is good, but for this purpose it too is arbitrary, since increasing an attribute not only raises the skill for all weapons, but for everything related to strength, relatable or not. So, the system doesn't actually raise people's skill with other weapons, it raises something that has a secondary effect of increasing people's ability to fight. They could easily have made it increase skill, say having all fighting skills increase at 1/5 a point whenever one of them is increased 1 point. But they chose to stick with a more gamey sort of system.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Of course, point-buy is still silly in its own way. Like in Fallout, where you become a genius with Energy Weapons without ever having seen one.

Which is made worse by the fact that more Intelligence = more skillpoints, which means that the nerd scientist will be punching holes through people faster than the brickwall with huge arms.

 

[Wyrmlord III]

Yes, and then too, he gets to improve his Unarmed skill after getting XPs (and thus additional levels) for opening locks, hacking computers, or using his persuade check. Activities with no real relation to actually punching people.

The simplest of reasons that use-based systems have made more sense since 1991.

 

[Surf Solar]

Does my character know how to handle that Laser rifle whwn I upgrade my Small Guns skill

Does my guy get to underatand the mechanics of a powerfist better when my strength increases

 

[hoverdog]

ban wormload

 

[Monk]

Just give a bit of a bonus for another weapon that requires similar skills.

 

[Lyric Suite]

The proficiency is already gained if you level up a fighter class (because of the high to hit value you gain). Extra proficiency means learning tactics specific for that weapon, which would be useless for another weapon, even a similar one (I.E., a long sword vs a bastard sword vs great sword. Check medieval combat manuals for reference on how different those weapons were from one another).

Wyrmlords, Wyrmlords never change.

 

[SCO]

trololol title

 

[Captain Shrek]

wyrmlord's retarded once again

strength plays some role but not all, simply being strong isn't enough to wield a flail without clumsily clubbing yourself in the face with it

that's why proficiency should be determined by both attribute and skill stats

as for dagger improving sword skill... that's even dumber than Wyrmlord's claims. would some guy with a dagger be parrying his opponent? would he be bashing an armoured foe with the pommel of his dagger? would a swordsman be as intent on evading and grappling as a dagger wielder? the two weapons aren't meant to be used in the same way, and also a sword skill should be split into two-handed and one-handed variants for proper emotional engagement

THere is more to it than that.

The entire idea of skill is an abstraction in order to balance the game and provide content. WHen different weapons act differently IN GAME it makes to allow the PC to learn one simply to provide a different experience with another. Unfortunately very few games to that right. e.g. DnD games have weapons as fluff really. The only real distinction there is size of the weapon and sometimes if the opponent has DR against weapon type.

THe games that do it right are where Axes cause bleeding damage, bludgeoning weapons cause knockback/down or swords cause wounds (this is an arbitrary example).

 

[Infinitron]

So when is the original Wyrmlord coming back?

 

[ironyuri]

So when is the original Wyrmlord coming back?

 

[Wyrmlord III]

Infinitron, I need a really good idea for a 20,000th post.

Something to outdo Crispy's 10,000th post. I really really can not waste that one post. Until then, no original Wyrmlord.

 

[Infinitron]

Something to outdo Crispy's 10,000th post.

Are you sure you are up to the challenge?

 

[Excommunicator]

Wait, you started up this retarded alt just so you could hold back for the 20k post? That doesn't sound like you Wyrmlord. More like you to yell at someone for criticising you for letting the 20k post slide by without a thought

On the other hand it's very much like sgc_meltdown to post normally up until the 6000th post and then suddenly disappear again into the night.



*Looks out through the rain streaked window towards the horizon*


Soon

 

[mondblut]

The answer is synergies. Extremely narrowed weaponskills (think AD&D proficiences as per BG2) should be intelligently grouped in related categories, and as you increase your longsword skill, your ability with broadswords, shortswords, bastard swords, scimitars and the like should go up a bit as well, making you fairly competent with all weapons relatively similar to your weapon of choice by the time you're perfect with it.

 

[taxalot]

I also wonder why bargaining/merchant skills do not make you laid more often in games.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I also wonder why bargaining/merchant skills do not make you laid more often in games.

I hope that this game does not allow you to get laid at all.

 

[Johannes]

Yeah and we should also split proficiencies by what enemy you're facing. Someone who's ever trained in sword dueling only, won't do too well against spearmen or dragons.

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

Yes, and then too, he gets to improve his Unarmed skill after getting XPs (and thus additional levels) for opening locks, hacking computers, or using his persuade check. Activities with no real relation to actually punching people.

The simplest of reasons that use-based systems have made more sense since 1991.

Correction: since 1984

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2012/10/first.html?m=0

 

[Gurkog]

I also wonder why bargaining/merchant skills do not make you laid more often in games.

There should be a Captain Kirk skill/perk that lets the player character shag anything and everything with an extra hole in it.