ActionTrip asks: "Can a real RPG can be fully turn-base

[sheek]

http://www.actiontrip.com/features/comb ... ames.phtml

Some red meat for you... take your minds off ESF.

 

[sheek]

Another one. "link

Summary
"AD&D games sucks & are for Angry Nerds!! DIABLO saved the RPG!? LOLLOLOLLRZ!!1? Aktshully, no AD&D also has STRATGY (=good).. CONCLUSION: It's a matter of OPINION!!"

 

[Greatatlantic]

About the first article, I think he's sayng you can't have an RPG with TB combat because TB is innately strategic and tactical, making your RPG a hybrid with the strategy genre. Since his first point is about how the genres are converging, I could see why he wants to say that. Its stupid of course. RPGs need not be defined by combat. Indeed, most games share some common elements, like a menue screen. Does this mean they belong in the same genre? No. Just like using a mouse to play. Tiny structural similarities don't mean the compositions share anything great.

Plus, he praises Bioware's infinity engine, and I have always maintained RTw/P combat stinks far worse then pure TB and pure RT.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

pen and paper games are NOT REAL RPGS!!!! only oblivion is a real rpg and all real rpgs owe their being rpgs to oblivion!

 

[Human Shield]

A lot of RPG gameplay comes from managing resources, without it you have AI simulation beyond the Sims (had to manage money and other stuff). I'm sure the ESF crowd would love going around a fish tank that looks like a fantasy movie and doing REALZ RPG by making shit up.

But the fun comes from choosing to sacrifice alternatives and pick an option as opposed to hand-eye coordination reaction tests. The combat system have limits on what you can do in an amount of time and so far TB systems provide more alternatives then RT, making them more interesting (stances compared to clicking "attack"). Environment, social, and other areas of an RPG are also better with more mutually exclusive alternatives, if you can do both at once either option is less valuable (lock pick and bash becomes one skill option that is fast and easy and doesn't make noise). You work with trade-offs, putting on max-skills and god-mode isn't interesting (but again people today would probably love to OMG ROLE PLAY as the CHOOSAN ONE and noclip through walls while thinking about how strong they are).

Bethesda should just release the next game as the construction set in first-person view, so they could role play as much as they wanted like deciding to role play failing to pick a lock and wash clothes until they role play they can get through.

 

[Blacklung]

I'm definitely along the line that the style choice for combat does not make or break the rest of the RPG elements. It could be turn based and paused, pure turn based, RTS, FPS, or what the fuck ever as long as you do it well and there isn't too much of it. The actual RPG elements of having real choice with real consequence and the chance to take a role and truly mold it with something beyond abstract stats. If I really care that much about the combat style...then I'll go be a combat monkey and play Age of Empires, M&M, or HL2.

As far as personal preference I really do like a close third person or a total first person perspective since it better allows me to believe that I'm actually there, and I've been a big FPS fan for years anyhow. Sadly, my only choices in the RPG market for games like that are Oblivion and maybe Bioshock, which I don't really classify as good RPGs (the former not even a good game, the latter is still too far off to tell).

 

[Blacklung]

Damn double post.

 

[Delirious Nomad]

A fully turnbased CRPG ? No, because turns outside of combat suck (last time i've seen such an abomination has to be Cops 2170/Paradise Cracked). On the other hand Strategy/RPG hybrids like say Heroes of Might and Magic work well fully turn based.

 

[cutterjohn]

About the first article, I think he's sayng you can't have an RPG with TB combat because TB is innately strategic and tactical, making your RPG a hybrid with the strategy genre. Since his first point is about how the genres are converging, I could see why he wants to say that. Its stupid of course. RPGs need not be defined by combat. Indeed, most games share some common elements, like a menue screen. Does this mean they belong in the same genre? No. Just like using a mouse to play. Tiny structural similarities don't mean the compositions share anything great.

Plus, he praises Bioware's infinity engine, and I have always maintained RTw/P combat stinks far worse then pure TB and pure RT.

Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a hybrid startegy/tactics and RPG as the grandfather of all RPGs, AD&D started life as a tabletop strategy game played with miniatures. The wargame was called Chainmail IIRC.

Bottom line is that the strategy/tactics portion in combat mainly comes into play when the character or party is actually engaged in combat. There are some additional tatctical/strategical considerations that must be made when equipping characters, choosing spells, feats(if using newer rules), dual classing, etc. but they are NOT the main point of the game and only server to contribute to a more complex and fun whole as they allow significantly more variation than those trashy action "RPG"s(I don't consider them to be RPGs hence the quotes).

This is more like comparing oh, say, something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy to some trashy romance novel or other piece of crappy pulp fiction. The trash may sell more copies, but I really doubt that anyone with more than a few neurons to rub together would ever claim that authors of epic novels are missing the point and should start emulating the dimestore trash novellists.

Hell most of these people probably wouldn't be able to understand the analogy as seeing that they are obviously incapable of the minimal thinking required to play a slightly more complex RPG(let's not kid ourselve on how complex classical cRPGs were, eh?) v. their uberly moronicized action "RPG"s that even Koko could enjoy and play. Furthermore it's unlikely that they'd understand the literary analogy as I truly believe that most of them are, likely, functionally illiterate, as evidenced by the desire of action "RPG"s (I'm looking ta you Oblivion) to massively reduce the difficult reading portions of the game, right along with all those other so difficult things like having to make decisions and building a character. I think this is even further evidenced by the "popularit" of 3rd person views in games and all the shiny little trinkets available to players just to allow them to look slightly different.

I still believe that TESV is going to end up something along the lines of:
combat skills: beating, rock throwing
magic: duh funny lights thingy
misc: other shit

Dialogs will consist only of boxes with a single button to click(OK) which will automatically be selected if the "player" does not respond within 3s.

There won't be any equipment or items as that would require the "players" to have to make difficult decisions wrt what looks better on their character so as not to disturb their immersion.

Characters won't die. They'll just fall unconcious for 500ms then pop back up with full health/etc. Monsters will have to take a 50% life penalty as they were too hard for the "player".

ugh, I can't write any more. Thanks for triggering a migraine you n00b.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

This is more like comparing oh, say, something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy to some trashy romance novel or other piece of crappy pulp fiction. The trash may sell more copies,

I don't think LotR ever underachieved in the sales category.

 

[cutterjohn]

This is more like comparing oh, say, something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy to some trashy romance novel or other piece of crappy pulp fiction. The trash may sell more copies,

I don't think LotR ever underachieved in the sales category.

You have to remember that it has about 50y on the trash, and is on reading lists for various educational institutions. More likely I should have specified something like Gormenghast(sp?) or War and Peace. GOrmenghast because it is relatively unknown, and critically acclaimed, while IMO its OK, but not up there with LotR. War and Peace on the other is a classic piece of fiction, however it(and other similar general fiction works) cannot really be compared with fantasy works as it has significantly more depth, so I was trying to stay in genre as it were.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

A fully turnbased CRPG ? No, because turns outside of combat suck (last time i've seen such an abomination has to be Cops 2170/Paradise Cracked). On the other hand Strategy/RPG hybrids like say Heroes of Might and Magic work well fully turn based.

Ultima IV was turn-based outside of combat, but if you took too long it would skip your turn and say "Pass".

 

[crufty]

boring article. Can there be a turn based RPG? The problem I have with real-time is it either a) eliminates strategy or b) eliminates interaction with the player.

The funny thing is, a good case for real-time is it takes the emphasis off combat--one could argue it should free up the player for MORE rp, less combat. In NWN1, my dwarf monk and his half-orc barbarian side kick could mow through the siege portion with ease. Sadly, there wasn't much else for me to do. Combat is still the main reason to play most rpgs, though I haven't played any since NWN/MW.

 

[Norfleet]

About the first article, I think he's sayng you can't have an RPG with TB combat because TB is innately strategic and tactical, making your RPG a hybrid with the strategy genre. Since his first point is about how the genres are converging, I could see why he wants to say that. Its stupid of course.

"Hybrid"? "Converging"? Does this man not know his history? RPGs *STARTED* as a subset of strategy gaming. That's how it's ALWAYS been.You think a company with a name like "Tactical Studies Rules" was NOT a company about making strategy games? Becoming more of a strategy game isn't CONVERGING, it's RETURNING TO ONE'S ROOTS. And I think this is a good thing.

 

[Falcore19]

One of the reasons I got bored with every RPG on the planet : Turn based RPG's aren't tactical and strategic enough, and real time RPGs action pale in comparison with other action games.

This discussion is all a joke anyway. Combat systems in RPGs evolve really slowly because nobody is really looking at improving them. If you look at their evolution, you can see that only a few underdog games take some risks and innovate, and it's successors don't even include those innovations into the next generation games! The fact is combat systems aren't all that decisive for a sell, that's for hardcore gamers market only.

In the end, you can give systems any fancy names, ATB, semi turn based, or whatever bullshit, they're still divided between : flawed turn based, and clunky real time.

 

[Human Shield]

Well the PnP market turns out lots of interesting combat, just no one wants to port any now except D&D, so we keep getting lame combat (which is sadly the focus of the game).

The Riddle of Steel system I've been looking into. It could please action fans and tactical fans at the same time, lots of strategy and thinking ahead but also instant reaction. Like a phase based system for each attack but a pool of resources and maneuvers that effect the past and future. Plus the most realistic aiming and damage system with removing limbs and instant kills.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

The problem I have with real-time is it either a) eliminates strategy or b) eliminates interaction with the player.

I have the impression some guys around here should be able to separate the system from the way it is implemented before trying to comment on this topic. RT gave us Myth II, a game with a more than fair share of tactical deep in his hardest dificulty level for the age it came out. RTwP, also, can and has been used in games with tactical deep before, like Privateer's Bounty and Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, or Star Wolves - A game not as deep as the ones mentioned before but quite good by it's own right, and quite challenging in the hardest dificulty. And all those games i mentioned had more than enough interaction with the player: In Nexus, for an example, you can be lugging around an entire flotilla of customized capital ships and assign different targes and sub-targets to each separate turret of each separate ship, manually configuring wich systems a ship must use and wich must not in a given situation, et cetera. Not a single game of those i mentioned played itself.

And if it works for tactical combat games, it works for RPGs - Or it should work if RPGs were not made for stupid kids in this time and age. The problem implementation - But some are looking at all those stupid and moronic games that use RT or RTwP and accusing the system for the sins of the design. Neverwinter Nights, for an example, is stupid because it was designed for stupid people and because it tried to make a real time system based on a turn based one, just to be "mainstream" and ADD-Kiddie compliant - Not because it has RT or RTwP combat. Most RTS fit in that same category, as they are trying to be fun for a given target intead of trying to be deep in any way or shape.

AD&D games sucks & are for Angry Nerds!!

They indeed suck, mostly. I do not understand the thing most codexers have going for D&D - Maybe i am lucky, but most P&P players and masters i know despise D&D. I had hope that the elitist codex hivemind would be more inclined to other, more RolePlaying-Centric rule sets instead. To talk about roleplaying in D&D is like to talk about it in Oblivion - You CAN roleplay inside your head if you want, but the rules are not built around that fact and are not conductive to it by themselves.

You can flame me now.

 

[sheek]

Um, I'm actually trying to start a Jihad against WotC. I agree D&D sucks, its just funny seeing console FPS action gamers complain about real RPGs which they think are represented by Baldur's Gate. That BG represents the pinnacle of 'hard-core/nerd' the RPG genre shows how clueless they are.

 

[Falcore19]

D&D sucks compared to other PnP, but can you name a CRPG that has a better combat system? Only a few comes to mind, and they're mostly underdogs.

 

[kris]

Rolemaster

 

[sheek]

Check out The Riddle of Steel.

http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/support/trosqs.zip

 

[kingcomrade]

D&D doesn't suck, there's quite a bit of really good stuff in there. The problem is mostly with the fluff. Most of the settings are dumb, the races are cliché, I'm not sure I really like the class system (though I do like the progression table idea) because its too restrictive...but the core mechanics work well and it's not often you have a magic system where non-damaging spells are very useful. Despite being there first it's really nice to find a change from the Mana system of magic usage, too.

 

[sheek]

How many roleplaying games have you played off the computer?

Oh, and:

I have the impression some guys around here should be able to separate the system from the way it is implemented before trying to comment on this topic. RT gave us Myth II, a game with a more than fair share of tactical deep in his hardest dificulty level for the age it came out.

RamblingSage you're a genius for liking a genius game. Too many people apparently have not even heard of Myth yet rave about all the crap, it just amazes me. Starcraft was a piece of shit in comparison. To think all this real 3D Physics stuff that's hot at the moment was implemented perfectly in 1997 and the multiplayer aspect has yet to be beaten.

 

[kingcomrade]

Me? Zero. P&P is for fags.

 

[FrancoTAU]

Maybe it's great as a tabletop game, but I always hated D&D CRPGs. I hate the magic system which renders your magic users being spectators for 90% of your battles until you're uber. And at which point, you can just bulldoze through with your melee guys anyways. The leveling up system stinks. A whole bunch of other minor things like the AC ratings being gibberish to someone who isn't rolling a die. My Strength is maxed out at 18... but wait.... I can be 18-57 which is even more maxer outed. Yuck.

The Goldbox Games can suck my dick. Stick to Ultima and Wizardry if you're a real CRPG'er.