Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The Battle System I Wish RPGs Would Stop Using

felicity

Scholar
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
339
Shemar said:
Well, that is making my point. There is no true simultaneous effects. That leads to a whole world of unresolved loopholes. Which is why such rulings and mechanics have been abandoned. All modern turn based systems have rules that break simultaneous actions into a sequence of actions. The rule can be as simple as 'defender decides order effects are applied' or as complicated as the MtG instant/interrupt/stack system (I have not played MtG for many years so I refer to the pre-11th edition system).

There are loopholes only if you design it so.

Scenario: two Lightning Bolts that hit for 50 damage each are targeted at a player who has 70/70 HP and is under effect of a Contingency spell that will trigger an instant Full Heal if the player receives any damage. Assuming the two Lightning Bolts are simultaneous, the Bolts will kill the player thus rendering Full Heal useless. Where is the loophole?

Do you think all damage should be gradual? i.e. 1 HP a time. Do you think damage-in-chunk is necessary? The later is one instance of simultaneous.

edit: I find it strange that you oppose simultaneous mechanic in turn-based system. In many cases simultaneous in turn-based system has superior implementation because the detachment of time aspect gives you more control in the mechanics.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
felicity said:
Scenario: two Lightning Bolts that hit for 50 damage each are targeted at a player who has 70/70 HP and is under effect of a Contingency spell that will trigger an instant Full Heal if the player receives any damage. Assuming the two Lightning Bolts are simultaneous, the Bolts will kill the player thus rendering Full Heal useless. Where is the loophole?

The loophole is the electrical resitance buff that is also applied to the target simultaneously with the lightning bolts. No loopholes means no loopholes under any conditions, it does not mean there are simultaneous conditions that don't have loopholes. Any system of measurable depth and complication will fall apart without a system to resolve actions and effects that are seemingly simultaneous, as sequential.
 

felicity

Scholar
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
339
Shemar said:
The loophole is the electrical resitance buff that is also applied to the target simultaneously with the lightning bolts. No loopholes means no loopholes under any conditions, it does not mean there are simultaneous conditions that don't have loopholes.

Then don't design a simultaneous system that has loophole? Why everything has to be simultaneous which is an idea I'm not even sure is intelligible. In the Lightning Bolt example, the alleged loophole can be solved by a damage formula that takes into account of the buff/debuff a skill carries, or you may seperate the damage part and buff part and gives priority to either.

Shemar said:
Any system of measurable depth and complication will fall apart without a system to resolve actions and effects that are seemingly simultaneous, as sequential.

Where do you draw the line of simultaneous and sequential? How would you implement HP losses? Most games have a damage formula that determines the final damage and then have the damage dealt in chunk. How's that not simultaneous? What's your definition of sequential implementation of HP loss? 1 HP a time? No 1 HP is still too many, maybe crack it down to bits?
 

Kaanyrvhok

Arbiter
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1,096
SCO said:
I don't see why a interrupt system couldn't work with groups as well as with individuals.

Just give a chance of scattering out of the range of the area spell based on interrupts based on some kind of statistic, with the normal penalties if the AI choses to go for it.

TB has been neglected as a system for a while now.


TB has been neglected while rtwp has held par or arguably been dumbed down with smaller parties. Pure realtime seems worse off too in RPGs though in shooters its improving.

I think your suggestions could work as long as you factor position in the reflex save. Thank goodness for 3e we didnt even have reflex saves in 2nd. Position should matter. Based on the way many of the AoE spells blast they have to travel in an arc so anyone near the edge should have a chance to avoid damage completely.


I am little tired of the orderly use of magic anyway especially in the absence of whatever feats and skills could be used to define a battle mage. Imagine if we needed to hone and develop skills before an AoE could be lobbed with precision accuracy over the front lines yada yada.

Shemar said:
I'll give you realism, but under no circumstances depth. Depth implies tactical decision making not arcade-y aiming at moving targets.



Well if you are paused then they arent moving so you arent trying to hit a moving target. You are trying to hit a target that could move. The possibility that they could avoid the spell adds a similar dynamic as tactical friendly fire. With tactical friendly fire you ask who is worth sacrificing to harm the enemy. When throwing an AoE at a moving crowed you ask who should I target knowing those closer to the center of the blast radius are far more likely to, or definitely going to take damage.

True, it is easier, if that was the goal. But from a TB fan's perspective that is certainly not the goal. 100% agree, not the same experience, which is why I will keep saying that anyone that claims RTwP can provide the same experience as TB is either ignorant or a moron (or a gaming industry exec which means he is probably both).


Granted, though some TB designs are closer to realtime than others. Group TB like Fire Emblem is a lot more board gameish than something like Arcanum, which with melee combat seems to play out similar when you switch to realtime.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
felicity said:
Then don't design a simultaneous system that has loophole? Why everything has to be simultaneous which is an idea I'm not even sure is intelligible. In the Lightning Bolt example, the alleged loophole can be solved by a damage formula that takes into account of the buff/debuff a skill carries, or you may seperate the damage part and buff part and gives priority to either.

Any system where the resolution of one action could influence the resolution of another, cannot work with those actions happening 'simultaneously'. It needs a way to decide which one happens first. Therefore "don't design a simultaneous system that has loophole" is pretty much meaningless. Unless of course you are naive enough to mean "make a special rule for every possible loophole, every possible combination of possible simultaneous actions could possibly create".

Where do you draw the line of simultaneous and sequential? How would you implement HP losses? Most games have a damage formula that determines the final damage and then have the damage dealt in chunk. How's that not simultaneous? What's your definition of sequential implementation of HP loss? 1 HP a time? No 1 HP is still too many, maybe crack it down to bits?

The line is extremely clear to anyone who is interested in an intelligent discussion and not in making holes in the water. We are talking about simultaneous vs. sequential resolution of actions and effects.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
Kaanyrvhok said:
Well if you are paused then they arent moving so you arent trying to hit a moving target. You are trying to hit a target that could move.
Therefore you use the arcade game skill of deflection shooting, trying to time the movement of the fireball with the movement of the target. Sure, not as arcadey as an action game, but nothing like a planned TB attack either. Like I said originally, about half way there.

The possibility that they could avoid the spell adds a similar dynamic as tactical friendly fire. With tactical friendly fire you ask who is worth sacrificing to harm the enemy. When throwing an AoE at a moving crowed you ask who should I target knowing those closer to the center of the blast radius are far more likely to, or definitely going to take damage.
Absolutely not. In TB you know who will get hit and who will not get hit for a fact. You make decisions based on what will happen. When you hit a friendly you hit them because you made the decision to include them in the blast because you made the tactical call that the damage they receive is outweighted by the additional damage the enemy received. In RTwP you make a generic call and hope for the best. Planning and analyzing to the level I described above is pointless. Completely different.
 

felicity

Scholar
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
339
Shemar said:
Any system where the resolution of one action could influence the resolution of another, cannot work with those actions happening 'simultaneously'. It needs a way to decide which one happens first.
My example already shown that simultaneous does work. The Lightning Bolts are resolved simultaneously.

Just about any action could influence another action. You are simply saying that simultaneous does not ever work, yet you admitted in your previous post that some instances of simultaneous does work.

Therefore "don't design a simultaneous system that has loophole" is pretty much meaningless. Unless of course you are naive enough to mean "make a special rule for every possible loophole, every possible combination of possible simultaneous actions could possibly create".
Or use logic which miraculously grants you the awesome ability to avoid design that is destined to be filled with ugly holes of lemniscate.

Sequential mechanic also may have loopholes precisely because it is sequential. For example a spell that makes the user act first in the next turn. Now 2 users cast this spell, which one will go first in the next turn? In either case there will be a contradiction.

Shemar said:
The line is extremely clear to anyone who is interested in an intelligent discussion and not in making holes in the water. We are talking about simultaneous vs. sequential resolution of actions and effects.
But it is not clear to me whether you recognize the similarity of my "holes-in-the-water" and Lightning Bolt example.

Why damage-in-chunk mechanic is not considered simultaneous resolution? Do you not take out all HP at once? How is this "at once" not simultaneous? If it was sequential then it should be -1 HP each resolution.

In my Lightning Bolt example, the 2 Bolts can be treated as one oversize Bolt with double parameters of a standard Lightning Bolt. How is it different than damage-in-chunk?
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
felicity said:
My example already shown that simultaneous does work. The Lightning Bolts are resolved simultaneously.
Your example only showed that two actions that DO NOT affect one another can be resolved simultaneously, so it is utterly useless and meaningless.

Just about any action could influence another action. You are simply saying that simultaneous does not ever work, yet you admitted in your previous post that some instances of simultaneous does work.
In order for a system to work, it must work in all instances. Just because you can cherry pick select instances where a system is not broken does not make the whole system not broken.

Or use logic which miraculously grants you the awesome ability to avoid design that is destined to be filled with ugly holes of lemniscate.
So give us the 'logic' of simultaneously resolving electrical damage and protection from electrical damage without rules that make them resolve sequentially.

Sequential mechanic also may have loopholes precisely because it is sequential. For example a spell that makes the user act first in the next turn. Now 2 users cast this spell, which one will go first in the next turn? In either case there will be a contradiction.
No there will not be. A proper sequential system always has ways of determining which action resolves first. Depending on these rules, the second casting would probably suprecede the first one, unless the detailed spell description specified otherwise. In any case the fact that anyone can come up with horrible design that intentionally creates loopholes does not mean that a sequential system always has inherent loopholes, which is the de facto case with simultaneous ones.

Why damage-in-chunk mechanic is not considered simultaneous resolution? Do you not take out all HP at once? How is this "at once" not simultaneous? If it was sequential then it should be -1 HP each resolution.
The effect or action being resolved is to do 50 damage. Not doing 1 HP damage 50 times. There is no possibility of confusion or misunderstanding. The 50 points of damage are a single effect, not 50 different effects that happen 'simultaneously'.

In my Lightning Bolt example, the 2 Bolts can be treated as one oversize Bolt with double parameters of a standard Lightning Bolt. How is it different than damage-in-chunk?
No, they cannot. They are separate actions resulting into separate effects. Treating them as a single chunk of damage would break pretty basic rules of every combat system I have ever played or worked with. Including the giant loophole of how do you apply resistance. If the target has resist 20 electricity, then with proper resolution he would take 60 damage from the two 50 HP lightning bolts, but if you were allowed to arbitrarily treat is as one 'chunk' of damage he would take 80.
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
Shemar said:
So give us the 'logic' of simultaneously resolving electrical damage and protection from electrical damage without rules that make them resolve sequentially.
Cmon, get a grip. That's really easy to establish rules for that. You cast a protection spell, and the protection starts its effect on simulation frame X. If the lightning bolt hits you on frame X-1 or earlier, you get fully hit. If it hits on frame X or later, you benefit from protection.

As if working RT games had never been coded...
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
Johannes said:
Shemar said:
So give us the 'logic' of simultaneously resolving electrical damage and protection from electrical damage without rules that make them resolve sequentially.
Cmon, get a grip. That's really easy to establish rules for that. You cast a protection spell, and the protection starts its effect on simulation frame X. If the lightning bolt hits you on frame X-1 or earlier, you get fully hit. If it hits on frame X or later, you benefit from protection.

As if working RT games had never been coded...
Get a clue. This discussion would be pointless in a RT/RTwP system as nothing ever happens truely simultaneously on a computer. Effects only resolve sequentially. This discussion is only meaningful in a TB system.

As for your actual example I will assume you have never written a line of computer code in your life, as it bears no relation to how an actual computer game would work. A protection spell would simply add the protection property to the target's memory object. When the lightning bolt is resolved it simply checks the target's memory object to see if there are any properties that would modify the resolution. There is no need for any kind of special rule or frame counting.
 

felicity

Scholar
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
339
Your example only showed that two actions that DO NOT affect one another can be resolved simultaneously, so it is utterly useless and meaningless.
Read below.

In order for a system to work, it must work in all instances. Just because you can cherry pick select instances where a system is not broken does not make the whole system not broken.
You mean all instances where the system are designed to work. You are making a straw man here. There is no such thing as a one-size-fit-all simultaneous system, same to sequential system, or any system really.

So give us the 'logic' of simultaneously resolving electrical damage and protection from electrical damage without rules that make them resolve sequentially.
Have you read my reply? A damage formula that takes into account of buff/debuff of a skilll carries. No sequential mechanic is involved.

No there will not be. A proper sequential system always has ways of determining which action resolves first. Depending on these rules, the second casting would probably suprecede the first one, unless the detailed spell description specified otherwise. In any case the fact that anyone can come up with horrible design that intentionally creates loopholes does not mean that a sequential system always has inherent loopholes, which is the de facto case with simultaneous ones.
Nice double thinking. So it isn't a loophole because eh... IM TOO SMART FOR LOOOPHOLESS AND YOU ARE FULL OF LOOPHOLES BECAUSE I SAY SO.

No matter how you dance around it, a sequential system cannot handle a skill that gives priority to two actions (and no this is not intentional loophole as the concept is not inherently contradicting). Your solution isn't a solution, if you gives one priority over another, it will be a contradiction. All it does is dropping a mechanic that the system cannot work with, and picking up another mechanic that works, which is exactly what you accused of 'cherry picking'.

The effect or action being resolved is to do 50 damage. Not doing 1 HP damage 50 times. There is no possibility of confusion or misunderstanding. The 50 points of damage are a single effect, not 50 different effects that happen 'simultaneously'.
Exactly my point. If you take out 1 HP 50 times it is NOT simultaneous - take one, then take another - not simultaneous. How do you resolve divisible units as one single effect if not simultaneously? Can you name me one instance where you can take out any amount of divisible units, yet is not simultaneous?

No, they cannot. They are separate actions resulting into separate effects. Treating them as a single chunk of damage would break pretty basic rules of every combat system I have ever played or worked with. Including the giant loophole of how do you apply resistance. If the target has resist 20 electricity, then with proper resolution he would take 60 damage from the two 50 HP lightning bolts, but if you were allowed to arbitrarily treat is as one 'chunk' of damage he would take 80.
You may prone to think many effects are sequential due to in-game presentations and habitual thinking when in fact they are not necessarily sequential. Many games have a damage formula that makes no difference whether some effects are applied sequentially or not(you may have heard of multiplier?). 2 Fireball, 20 Thunder Bolt. It doesn't matter - it's the same: references the skill table, pluck the values then place them into the formula. A double Thunder Bolt just mean more calculations, which is no real different than doing 50 damage with a sword in the sense that only the formula has changed.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
felicity said:
You mean all instances where the system are designed to work. You are making a straw man here. There is no such thing as a one-size-fit-all simultaneous system, same to sequential system, or any system really.
Completely wrong. Only a simultaneous system needs a multitude of exceptions and sub-rules. A sequential system only needs a basic rule to determine sequence of events, which automatically, miraculously, fixes any and all issues of conflicting events happening simultaneously.

Have you read my reply? A damage formula that takes into account of buff/debuff of a skilll carries. No sequential mechanic is involved.
What the fuck does that even mean? Either the buff is taken into account in which case it effectively happens before the attack, or it is not taken into account so effectively it happens after the attack. There is NO way to resolve them simultaneously.

Nice double thinking. So it isn't a loophole because eh... IM TOO SMART FOR LOOOPHOLESS AND YOU ARE FULL OF LOOPHOLES BECAUSE I SAY SO.
Apparently you are not smart enough to figure out that making up powers to specifically break a system does not make a system broken.

No matter how you dance around it, a sequential system cannot handle a skill that gives priority to two actions (and no this is not intentional loophole as the concept is not inherently contradicting). Your solution isn't a solution, if you gives one priority over another, it will be a contradiction. All it does is dropping a mechanic that the system cannot work with, and picking up another mechanic that works, which is exactly what you accused of 'cherry picking'.
Of course it is inherently contradicting. It is inherently contradicting on ANY system. Two characters both cast “I go first”. Next round the first character casts heal that would take him from 5 HP to 10 HP. The second character casts Magic missile doing 7 HP of damage to the first character. How do you resolve that non-sequentially genius?

Exactly my point. If you take out 1 HP 50 times it is NOT simultaneous - take one, then take another - not simultaneous. How do you resolve divisible units as one single effect if not simultaneously? Can you name me one instance where you can take out any amount of divisible units, yet is not simultaneous?
There is nothing divisible. Get over it. You do not resolve 50 HP of damage by doing -1 HP 50 times. You just do -50 HP. There is no simultaneous action happening. It is just a single action.

You may prone to think many effects are sequential due to in-game presentations and habitual thinking when in fact they are not necessarily sequential. Many games have a damage formula that makes no difference whether some effects are applied sequentially or not(you may have heard of multiplier?). 2 Fireball, 20 Thunder Bolt. It doesn't matter - it's the same: references the skill table, pluck the values then place them into the formula. A double Thunder Bolt just mean more calculations, which is no real different than doing 50 damage with a sword in the sense that only the formula has changed.
Exactly how dense are you? Many mathematical functions can occur regardless of sequence, and multiplication or division are amongst them. That has nothing to do with a combat system. It is just math. Add an effect that uses addition/subtraction (like damage resistance or flat bonuces to die rolls) with another that uses a multiplier or division and immediately your whole argument crumbles.

Yes, MANY actions are sequence irrelevant, but that means jack shit as a system must be reliable in ALL cases not just some. And a system without rules to break simultaneous actions into sequential ones will always be broken.
 

felicity

Scholar
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
339
Completely wrong. Only a simultaneous system needs a multitude of exceptions and sub-rules. A sequential system only needs a basic rule to determine sequence of events, which automatically, miraculously, fixes any and all issues of conflicting events happening simultaneously.
I don't care until you proof it. Alternatively you may tell me how many games you have made/worked on so your words at least come from some authority.

What the fuck does that even mean? Either the buff is taken into account in which case it effectively happens before the attack, or it is not taken into account so effectively it happens after the attack. There is NO way to resolve them simultaneously.
Or the effect happens simultaneously with the attack, and they affect each other, so the effect is taken into account?

Of course it is inherently contradicting. It is inherently contradicting on ANY system. Two characters both cast “I go first”. Next round the first character casts heal that would take him from 5 HP to 10 HP. The second character casts Magic missile doing 7 HP of damage to the first character. How do you resolve that non-sequentially genius?
Next turn two players go first. Next turn they both draw a card from their deck. Not inherently contradicting. It is just you cherry picking mechanics that suit your perfect precious system.

There is nothing divisible. Get over it. You do not resolve 50 HP of damage by doing -1 HP 50 times. You just do -50 HP. There is no simultaneous action happening. It is just a single action.
HP is divisible, otherwise varied damage is impossible, no 'getting over it' will change it. Let me ask you again, how do you take out any amount of divisible units without doing so simultaneously?

Exactly how dense are you? Many mathematical functions can occur regardless of sequence, and multiplication or division are amongst them. That has nothing to do with a combat system. It is just math. Add an effect that uses addition/subtraction (like damage resistance or flat bonuces to die rolls) with another that uses a multiplier or division and immediately your whole argument crumbles.
Damage formula is a vital part of combat mechanic. When creating a formula, which variable should affect which variable and how concerns us most, not what happens first or second.

I'm not sure which 'whole argument' you are referring to.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
felicity said:
I don't care until you proof it. Alternatively you may tell me how many games you have made/worked on so your words at least come from some authority.
What I am saying is actually self evident to anybody with a brain. Which is why there are no modern TB combat systems that I know of that allow actions to ever happen simultaneously, without mechanics to resolve conflicts between actions sequentially. Even all of your own examples effectively break down any conflicts into sequetially resolved actions. There is no mechanical difference in saying "buffs always happen before damage" and "when buffs and damage occur simultaneously, buffs are taken into effect". Just because you call it simultaneous does not make it so.

Or the effect happens simultaneously with the attack, and they affect each other, so the effect is taken into account?
If the buff is taken into account then it is already in place when the damage comes into effect. Your resolution is effectively sequential. The only difference is that instead of a generic easy to understand and implement rule to always prevent simultaneous actions you have to anticipate every possible conflict of every possible actions or effects and create special rules for them, special rules that effectively turn simultaneous resolution to sequential.

Of course it is inherently contradicting. It is inherently contradicting on ANY system. Two characters both cast “I go first”. Next round the first character casts heal that would take him from 5 HP to 10 HP. The second character casts Magic missile doing 7 HP of damage to the first character. How do you resolve that non-sequentially genius?
Next turn two players go first. Next turn they both draw a card from their deck. Not inherently contradicting. It is just you cherry picking mechanics that suit your perfect precious system.
So who gets the to go first genious? If one card is damage and the other is heal what happens first? Even in your own example there is conflict, let alone an actual RPG combat example that would come up on ANY system. That is not cherry picking, the timing conflict betwen damage and buffs/healing is inherent in every single combat system.

HP is divisible, otherwise varied damage is impossible, no 'getting over it' will change it. Let me ask you again, how do you take out any amount of divisible units without doing so simultaneously?
Dense, dense, dense. No wonder you can't get even the most basic of concepts. Effects are NOT DIVISIBLE. 50 HP doing half damage is still a SINGLE EFFECT. Just because you can divide the 50 HP to get 25 for half damage does not make the effect divisible.

Damage formula is a vital part of combat mechanic. When creating a formula, which variable should affect which variable and how concerns us most, not what happens first or second.
Generic bullshit that ultimately means nothing. The fact is that what happens first or second matters, because the math is different. 50 HP fireball hits target with resist 10 Fire. Target succeeds in saving throw/fireball attack misses resulting in half damage. Whether the 50 HP are halved before or after the fire resistance comes into play makes a huge different. In one case you have 50/2-10=15. In the other you have (50-10)/2=20. That's 25% variance between the two resolutions.
 

Kaanyrvhok

Arbiter
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1,096
Shemar said:
Therefore you use the arcade game skill of deflection shooting, trying to time the movement of the fireball with the movement of the target. Sure, not as arcadey as an action game, but nothing like a planned TB attack either. Like I said originally, about half way there.


You aren’t using an arcade skill at all. You are using an estimation based on AI and movement while gauging risk reward. There is no timing or coordination. Its similar to lobbing the sheep in Worms but even less random.


Absolutely not. In TB you know who will get hit and who will not get hit for a fact. You make decisions based on what will happen. When you hit a friendly you hit them because you made the decision to include them in the blast because you made the tactical call that the damage they receive is outweighted by the additional damage the enemy received. In RTwP you make a generic call and hope for the best. Planning and analyzing to the level I described above is pointless. Completely different.


In the IE you have a good idea of who will be hit and who will be spared. The only doubt is in the targets near the edge of the blast. So you already have everything you would have in TB with sure hits both being friendly and foe along with possible hits being friendly and foe. It’s the same thing with an extra layer which is why (theoretically if done right) it has more depth. Again I acknowledge that you could add a similar or maybe exact aspect in a TB game.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
A fireball is an area effect spell. not a hit one target and maybe some others spell. To use it tactically I expect to take full advantage of the entire area of effect. To me the essense of tactical combat is the ability to use powers and weapons optimally. Adding the arcadey randomness of moving targets just breaks that, no matter how you slice it.

There is no point in going back and forth because you keep repoeating the same thing over and over and I keep answering the same. My opinion remains that targetting a fireball in RTwP is as close to an arcade game as it is to TB. It is also that this removes pretty much all of the tactical element I want in a TB game. The fact that it may add a different kind of challenge (and feel free to call it tactical but I still see it as action) is irrelevant to me.

You started this conversation because, if I remember correctly, you could not understand why TB fans see RTwP as so inferior. Based on all your posts, I see you have no interest in understanding that, but in a rather vain and pointless attempt to convince that RTwP is not inferior. Intead you have convinced that you indeed cannot understand why many view RtwP as inferior to TB.

Also note that you keep talking about IE and I keep talking about RTwP. My memory of IE combat is almost non existent, it was a decade ago or more. My view of RTwP systems are games like NWN2 and DA:O. Not that it really changes anything. I feel there is no essential difference between any of these systems (IE, NWN2, DA:O - yes, heretical as it sounds the actiual rule set is a distant second to how I view computer combat systems, the type TB/RTwP/RT is the primary characteristic).
 

felicity

Scholar
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
339
Shemar said:
What I am saying is actually self evident to anybody with a brain.

Anyone uses self evident so loosely instantly loses my respect of them as a thinker and a debater.
 

Kaanyrvhok

Arbiter
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1,096
Shemar said:
A fireball is an area effect spell. not a hit one target and maybe some others spell. To use it tactically I expect to take full advantage of the entire area of effect. To me the essense of tactical combat is the ability to use powers and weapons optimally. Adding the arcadey randomness of moving targets just breaks that, no matter how you slice it.


There is our major point of contention and kinda petty considering how long this has gone on.
The rules governing fireballs in the Gold Box games always seemed slighted or unfinished so I dont care for them. Anything that explodes with such a radius would have to be lofted in the air giving its victims some time to react. The saving throw wasn’t based on Dex so it almost suggest that every fireball leaves the wizards hand and travels up and down into its victims in less than a second. That didn’t makes sense. By giving the enemies time to move (even if they didn’t use it worth a damn) the IE games improved the rules.



There is no point in going back and forth because you keep repoeating the same thing over and over and I keep answering the same. My opinion remains that targetting a fireball in RTwP is as close to an arcade game as it is to TB. It is also that this removes pretty much all of the tactical element I want in a TB game. The fact that it may add a different kind of challenge (and feel free to call it tactical but I still see it as action) is irrelevant to me.

The problem is you are trying to argue that TB combat is better because it doesn’t do something instead of explaining how it could. That’s why you keep painting a more organic magic system as being ‘arcady’. You would rather attack the validity of the problem then explain how TB combat could solve it.


You started this conversation because, if I remember correctly, you could not understand why TB fans see RTwP as so inferior. Based on all your posts, I see you have no interest in understanding that, but in a rather vain and pointless attempt to convince that RTwP is not inferior. Intead you have convinced that you indeed cannot understand why many view RtwP as inferior to TB.


In context yes. Its not so much that I care to argue about what is better. Mainly I was disagreeing with the author of the article because the guy wants all these things that would seem to be more attainable or already present in RTwP combat while ragging on Baldur’s Gate.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
Kaanyrvhok said:
The problem is you are trying to argue that TB combat is better because it doesn’t do something instead of explaining how it could. That’s why you keep painting a more organic magic system as being ‘arcady’. You would rather attack the validity of the problem then explain how TB combat could solve it.

Yes, I am arguing that TB is better because it does not have the element of flinging fireballs (or any other area effect spells) while the targets are moving. I do not want to 'explain how it could' because I don't want it to. There is nothing to 'solve'.
 

Shuma

Scholar
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
208
Jesus fucking christ. Every time this guy dreams up some dumb shit to say about RPGs, I have felt compelled to post this. I have been able to hold back my desires until now. This guy needs to be a Codex avatar in some fashion. Gaze upon, ye unwashed, and despair:

IMG_0851.png




That face says all you need to know.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom