The cRPGs that have failed the most have invented gameplay-mechanics and then a system, finding out how shitty and simplistic their mechanics and their system was once they went together. Complex gameplay mechanics develop because the good systems require them.
You show me a game developer - not just a video game one - that can think up complex mechanics and then design a specific system. The fact is, you start with basic gameplay designs, then you work out your system, and while doing exactly that - working out your system - you get the opportunity to increase the complexity of both system and mechanics. Finalising every gameplay mechanic in a cRPG without a system is completely abstract, it would be almost impossible.
The system should support your gameplay vision. The actual gameplay is just the way the system tries to turn this vision into practice.
I think we simply use different nomenclature here. To me systems is the mechanics. A good system is such that puts all those mechanics into good use creating fun experience - this is its overriding objective and nothing else matters. I agree that designers should think first about the larger picture. However, before we can start working on it we need a set of premises - basic gameplay design or gameplay vision as you call it. (e.g. my system will allow mounted combat). It cannot be created in the void because it would a system for the system's sake - in such cases there's little gameplay. It does happen (I really have the impression that it happened in case of AoD).
This is exactly why I puke every time I hear Sawyer talking about PE's system design. "Hey Sawyer, do you want opportunity attacks!" "Yeah man, we'll find a way to fit them into the system!" "What about cooldowns!" "Sure man, sounds great!"
He's making all these decisions about gameplay, without having any sort of framework that can handle them. Then finally his idea is to throw all these gameplay decisions into a bucket, shake them and say: "THAT'S OUR SYSTEM!"
What a load of crap. Systems are tailor-made, streamlined entities where all ends tie into a whole. Not a series of gameplay-decisions knitted into random bunch of strings.
So we are in agreement again. That was me whining about the plan Sawyer does not have. Dropping names and saying "our system will have this and that and that" won't work, because now you will have to create a system around the promises and not promises upon the system... which will be a cluserfuck. Using analogy, it is tantamount to building a house on a swamp instead of hard soil and later having to do all sorts of magic so that it doesn't fall apart - which will make it look fugly and not very accommodating.
However, notice here that Obsidian can produce a clusterfuck with a ready-made system (D&D 3.5), whereas Bioware made a very focused effort with the system of their own. Hmm... I guess one party could into planning.
You argument is: why make game-systems when you have ready PnP solutions available?
My argument is: you can make a system tailored for the gameplay from the scratch.
The fact is there will always be some tailoring necessary, whetehr you use ready system and make one out of nothing. I am all for adopting existing systems provided that devs do not fuck around and make necessary changes which would facilitate fun gameplay. Leaving something in because "duh, it's what system tells us" is just dumb.
No you don't. You mostly only have truely stupid shit in the cRPGs based upon Game Developers Own System. Seriously. Take a look at the cRPGs. The most unbalanced ones are games with made-up systems. In fact, of the Holy Codex Trinity, two games have down-right shitty balance with tons of useless and overpowered crap (Fallout and Arcanum) and one is fairly balanced (Baldur's Gate 2). Two of these have made up systems constructed by whatever video game developer put on the Happy-Hat that day, the other had a professionally designed system.
I agree. That was me saying that I value focused efforts at least at the same level as ambitious, experimentative failures. That's why early planning is essential. This does not apply only to game mechanics but all facets. Look at Thief games for instance. There even art direction and sound effects play an important role. The difference is Thief uses its own system. Sure it is not a pure-breed RPG, but it also proves that in order to be really innovative you need to think out of the box and avoid templates.
The fact that BG2's shitty implementation of a shitty system is sooooooo muuuuuuuuuuuuch better than two of our favourite video game developer made ones speak volumes about the advantages of proven systems made by professional system designers.
They are not my favourites.
If you have a GM that "makes your build useful" you are a very shitty player and he is a very shitty GM. The GM sets the challenge and you use your choices to cope with them. He doesn't tailor-make the challenges to you because you thought 20 skill-points in grenades for your security specialist was a fantastic idea.
Yes it is GM, but his task is also to provide solutions to them that are achieveable to players. Imagine a scenario when while playing D&D GM sends a 15th level dragon on a 2nd level party. An extreme and obvious example. Let's use a more subtle one.
Imagine you play as a charismatic wealthy merchant, who has his way around people and have made many powerful allies, but is rather wimpy and would have hard time fighting 1 opponent, let alone 5. He is ordered to go from city A to city B. He went on his own. Suddenly he is ambushed by 5 experienced bandits who gut his insides. Was the GM unfair? It depends - maybe there was a way for the player to avoid his demise? How could he accomplish it?
By not acting stupid. He should have used his wealth and influence to hire escort. He should have gone together with an armed caravan. All these options are available only if GM allows them. If he didn't it means he is hell-bent on being a dick - the dice was loaded from the start, and thus there is no gameplay. This reveals the basic problem with cRPG balance. cRPG can refuse an option by simply not featuring it. The example I gave you comes from AoD where one failed skill-check rendered my build unplayable - I could not progress because the game did not allow a normal common-sense solution any GM would permit.
. In extreme cases you can end up with Realms of Arkania, where loads of stats were simply useless, but how the player could tell that when he started the game?
OK. I will admit that The Dark Eye is a pretty bad system
It was not the problem of the Dark Eye system, but its amatourish implementation in a cRPG. There were loads of stats, but most of them were useless - they have no bearing on gameplay. They could bye useful in PnP scenarios, but the game did not feature them (enough). The problem is, how the player is supposed to know which skills are essential, which are just for flavour, and which are pointless?
No, but seriously, RTFM and deal with it. It's a unavoidable requirement that for you to have freedom in your build and for you to be able to improve in using the system, the chance to crash and burn must be real. Evaluate the system, read the handbook, make your best calls.
And what if the player invests shitloads of points in mountaineering only to realise much later on that there are no mountains in the game?
). D&D 3.5 is infinitely more complex and better made than DA:O's system. But first off, BG2 is AD&D, an retarded, arbitrary and needlessly complex system on many counts. Needlessly complex in that it is actually not that complex but most of the complexity that is there wouldn't be necessary to achieve what the system achieves. It is certainly way, waaaaaay less functional than DA:O's. Neither are great systems, but we've had spades and spades of great RPGs with shitty systems. At DA:O's system has differantiation, something to do with your level-ups, and an actual role for non-casters. BG2 is also better than DA:O on every count, but again, this does not make DA:O bad. DA:O is a good game for all the reasons Mrowak has recounted.
Bioware are truly geniuses of their field, not like the poorly managed, always overshooting Obsidian.
