Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[DefJam101]

Complex things can be better for ~~immersion~~ purposes (real immersion, not omg so emotional much engage immersion) but THAC0 is a terrible example because it doesn't really represent anything well at all

 

[Grunker]

In short, Grunker has a point. Ideally, any sort of gaming system should be relatively easy to understand and transparent but hard to master.

I realize I probably shouldn't challenge the opinions of even more people who seemlingly agree with me, but I'm not sure that's what I meant. The problem with THAC0 isn't that it is complex, it is that it doesn't do anything with that complexity that isn't done with the simple addition of BAB.

GURPS is very hard to understand (though it is transparent), but that's OK, because to achieve the simulation/modularity that GURPS does, it has to use very complex mechanics.

Anyway, in effect, I mostly agree with you. And you're right that ALL systems should aim to be as transparant as possible. But they don't have to be easy to understand.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I don't care about Sawyer,

That's cool and all, but this is what started it. I said Sawyer's problem with it is that people don't get it and so he wants to do streamlining for the sake of streamlining and you got all riled up about how that's not the issue when that was exactly the issue at hand.
In other words, I haven't even started saying that I have no problems with its overcomplexity before you started yammering about it. But, as it turns out you're fucking clairvoyant.

I care about what you claimed to me.

I still haven't called you "retarded-children". I don't know why you thought I did and got butthurt about it.

You ARE an aspie though, as you failed your sarcasm check 2 times:

itt we learn Grunker likes streamlining just because it makes it easier for everybody. See how that works?

inb4 accusations of desiring simplification is thrown at the resident gurps fanboi

Strike 1. Was even pointed out by "See how that works?". Meaning how it works to take stuff out of context.

You have some issues bro. I think you're an aspie.

how ironic you call me one

Strike 2.

If you honest-to-God straight up say to me "nono! needless complexity has NO disadvantages!"

No, I'm straight up saying it's not automatically worse.

that isn't done with the simple addition of BAB.

Sawyer thinks BAB is bad too.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I realize I probably shouldn't challenge the opinions of even more people who seemlingly agree with me, but I'm not sure that's what I meant. The problem with THAC0 isn't that it is complex, it is that it doesn't do anything with that complexity that isn't done with the simple addition of BAB.

Challenging opinions is cool, no worries.

I don't think THAC0 is complex, it's painfully simple (it's how good you are at hitting shit), it just "sounds" complex for no good reason.

Think about how bad book on a certain subject will make things needelesly complex and hard to understand while a good book can convey the crux of the matter even to a reasonably intelligent and eager to learn layman.

GURPS is very hard to understand (though it is transparent), but that's OK, because to achieve the simulation/modularity that GURPS does, it has to use very complex mechanics.

Anyway, in effect, I mostly agree with you. And you're right that ALL systems should aim to be as transparant as possible. But they don't have to be easy to understand.

Well I said "relatively" easy and I was more thinking about adapting system to a CRPG, some complexity has to be lost in the process.

Admittedly, easy to understand may have been the wrong term to use, let's say it should only be as complex as it is needed and possible for someone who is patient and interested enough to get the basic concept of how things work in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[uaciaut]

1. Sawyer thinks thac0 and other stuff are hard to grasp
2. I think they're not
3. I think those who can't grasp them are retarded

Explain THAC0 to me without using any term specific to RPGs or gaming.

Offensive stat that interacts with AC - its' defensive counterpart - to determine a character's chance to hit - which is effectively calculated by rolling a 20-sided die and adding the difference between player THAC0 and Enemy AC.

I didn't know exactly how thac0 and AC worked beyond the fact that lower=better until i actually looked it up and realized dies can have more than 6 sides (yea yea i'm a retard).

I do agree that's it's counter-intuitive design and the same purpose it's meant to reach can be attained with a much less convoluted system that's easier to stomach as well - that's all there is to the thac0 system idk why you're making such a lengthy debate over this and going full autism mode.


Re complex vs simple in design - i think it depends on the context, having each attribute govern in entirety a single or multiple combat stat is much simpler that making multiple stats affect said combat stats in different proportions but i think it's a bad design choice if you're looking to make attributes have near-equal roles in combat.

 

[Aeschylus]

I've never really understood people pointing to THAC0 as some overly complex system. It's really only one minor layer more complex than the to-hit mechanics in 3E. Just add opponent's AC and your to-hit modifiers to your roll, and if it's >= your THAC0 you hit. Admittedly, it's an unnecessary extra layer of complexity which was (probably correctly) done away with in subsequent editions, but anyone talking about THAC0 as some sort of unexplainable, nebulous thing is being disingenuous.

 

[Cosmo]

I've never really understood people pointing to THAC0 as some overly complex system.

You've not been paying attention son : it's uselessly complex, not overly so.

 

[Aeschylus]

I've never really understood people pointing to THAC0 as some overly complex system.

You've not been paying attention son : it's uselessly complex, not overly so.

Ok, that's basically true. And you're right, I haven't been paying attention. I can't keep up with the speed of the 'sperging in this thread.

 

[Lhynn]

Well, after everything is said and done if you play AD&D for about 3 or 4 sessions youll never have a problem calculating thac0, becomes second nature. And no, its not overly complex, just unintuitive. You go down instead of going up, thats all there is to it.

 

[Krash]

Yeah, but it's still tarded, why not do it in an intuitive way instead if it gives the exact same results?

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, but it's still tarded, why not do it in an intuitive way instead if it gives the exact same results?

no reason, no reason at all, its there, its kinda shit, but there is a huge sign it says "change it if you want to". People criticizing this is about as retarded as the codex can get (Please dont prove me wrong).

 

[Space Satan]

I still remember game magazines' reviews of Baldur's Gate after its release - every review started with brief introduction to D&D and explaining why lower armor class is good. Everyone explained thac0 as a "chance to hit" or "the bigger the better". For people, who first came in contact with D&D rules in the form of BG that was more than enough.

 

[Semper]

Everyone explained thac0 as a "chance to hit" or "the bigger the better".

srsly?

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I still remember game magazines' reviews of Baldur's Gate after its release - every review started with brief introduction to D&D and explaining why lower armor class is good. Everyone explained thac0 as a "chance to hit" or "the bigger the better". For people, who first came in contact with D&D rules in the form of BG that was more than enough.

You mean the lower the better

 

[janjetina]

THAC0 is problematic because it starts from the mechanical concept of dice roll to hit instead of intuitive high level perspective of combat (where bigger means better and subtraction is involved). That kind of "bottom-up" approach is assburgerish and it results in the counterintuitive concept of armor class being applied to dice rolls. It is the armor class itself, that can take both negative and positive values, where lower value is better, that is counterintuitive in nature. THAC0, derived from the counterintuitive concept of armor class, being the minimum roll necessary to hit armor class 0, can only be counterintuitive.

A natural approach where bigger means better related to armor class and subtracting the armor class form the dice rolls is infinitely better.

Having said that, it is just a minor annoyance for the player to get familiar with the concept and enjoy playing the game.

 

[Semper]

It is the armor class itself, that can take both negative and positive values, where lower value is better, that is counterintuitive in nature.

it's not only that. it's also "hard" for beginners to wrap their brains around the fact that you have to subtract positive modifiers (like +weapons) from their chance to hit. at first this sounds totally wrong and illogical. the later approach of bab feels way more natural and is therefore the better system.

 

[Space Satan]

I still remember game magazines' reviews of Baldur's Gate after its release - every review started with brief introduction to D&D and explaining why lower armor class is good. Everyone explained thac0 as a "chance to hit" or "the bigger the better". For people, who first came in contact with D&D rules in the form of BG that was more than enough.

You mean the lower the better

my mistake, I meant weapons description, like THAC0: +3.

 

[DraQ]

Anyone that can give a short version on whats happening in the last... 50 pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Indeed.

Spoiler

As usual, with gamistfags herpaderping as usual and narrativists not realizing that narrativism in cRPG context boils down to effectively reducing game to CYOA.

Intellect governs melee damage

That alone isn't that bad in an excessively abstracted game.

and strength has no role in melee combat. no minimum requirements for wielding weapons

That however is just awful.

To hit modifiers could be realized by on weapon maluses mitigated by stats.

Also, I don't think INT should govern ranged damage, except possibly for spells, will it?

Personally, I suspect that Intellect's overall effect on damage will be small enough that it won't be as much of a "must have" as you suspect.

Then it would effectively equalize different classes in terms of melee output. Not exactly what you'd want from an RPG.

A way to deal with it would be avoiding bloat so that exact damage output of the entire party wouldn't be that important, but given Josh's thoughts on weapon requirements he unfortunately seems to be a bloatfag.

Now you are just making it too easy, combat proficiency is a knowlege, it is something you learn, therefore i have no qualms with it being affected by intelligence.

Overall proficiency can be also taught by the means of drills and exercises, which is typically enough for battlefield conditions - you don't necessarily want smart soldiers, you want ones that follow orders.

The thing is that in a cRPG you don't have battlefield or even duel-like (where int would actually start getting useful) combat. You have small scale combat in diverse environments, with diverse combatants against diverse threats. Figuring how the fuck to deal with situation you couldn't have been drilled to deal with specifically becomes paramount.

If two untrained dudes hit the same spot, one extremely strong and the other about as strong as he needs to be to swing the axe. then clearly the dude with more strengh will have a bigger effect against the target.
Inteligence as a general stat to determine base damage for everything is an ilogical concept, as it has no direct effect on said strike.

And if two untrained dudes are wielded by a giant like clubs and used to hit the same spot, it clearly becomes apparent that strength plays no role in damage dealing and the only attributes that matter are height and mass.



By coming up with increasingly contrived and constraining situations you can pretty much eliminate all attributes from the equation.

The thing is that dealing damage in combat isn't the same as just hitting the predefined spot as hard as you fucking can.
It's choosing where to hit, how to hit, when to hit and what to do before hitting to hit.
Retard strength alone won't really help you here, especially given that damage dealt will be capped and influenced by weapon to a far greater extent than STR and hitting with maximum force will rarely if ever be a viable option.

And since in an IE style game you can't really reflect differences between right and wrong moments and locations to hit stuff and let INT influence that, nor can you pick the moments and locations manually, nor can you interact with environment on regular basis, INT->damage is appropriate abstraction for an IE game. Bonus points for swashbuckler archetype/ intelligent combatant being fairly attractive in other media.

PS: im actually hoping a retard breaks your face and then rapes your ass before the end of the month.

I doubt you'll have such chance.

Try someone else.

It's interesting how all the rage is over damage when I've seen virtually no complaints about how the accuracy of any given attack or spell is determined by dexterity. When you attack an opponent it's their defense score (deflection, fortitude, reflex, or psyche) versus your attack score (always buffed or penalized by dexterity). You need to be dextrous to better hit someone with melee weapons, ranged weapons, ranged single-target and aoe damage spells, debuffs, crowd control, etc. No more no-save free rides.

One day the masses will thank JE for his easy-to-understand unified RPG system.

Actually, for melee attacks there should be no attack roll. There should be a defense roll modified by all sorts of factors (including attacker's stats and modifiers). If the target is not capable of defense, the attack should simply hit.



As for complexity, complexity and shitty obfuscation aren't the same thing. Nor are complexity and complication.

Who says simpler is necessarily better than complex even if it achieves the same result?

what the fuck am i reading

This.

As long as the result is actually the same.

hint: a concept is only easy to understand if you have prior exposure to similar concepts.

Actually that's what intelligence allows you to work around.

Complex things can be better for ~~immersion~~ purposes (real immersion, not omg so emotional much engage immersion) but THAC0 is a terrible example because it doesn't really represent anything well at all

I'm not sure it's inherently so.

I think it's just that when simplifying stuff you hit the point where it stops doing the same thing, and that's why immersive stuff usually needs to be complex - not for complexity itself, but because you can't really simplify it any more without dumbing it down.

Challenging opinions is cool, no worries.

I don't think THAC0 is complex, it's painfully simple (it's how good you are at hitting shit), it just "sounds" complex for no good reason.

Think about how bad book on a certain subject will make things needelesly complex and hard to understand while a good book can convey the crux of the matter even to a reasonably intelligent and eager to learn layman.

That's "complicated" or "contrived", not "complex".

It's just unnecessarily messy without this mess conveying any sort of actual intricacy.

THAC0 is problematic because it starts from the mechanical concept of dice roll to hit instead of intuitive high level perspective of combat (where bigger means better and subtraction is involved). That kind of "bottom-up" approach is assburgerish and it results in the counterintuitive concept of armor class being applied to dice rolls.

Bottom up is only good if you're already in the realm of mechanics that represent something (but then it can be awesome) rather than still messing around with components of even most basic abstractions.

 

[Roguey]

I've mangled PoE's attributes into an acronym.

Spryness
Awareness
Wit
Youthfulness
Endurance
Resolve

Having more wits makes you do more damage. A sharp tongue indeed.

 

[Crooked Bee]

So, from what I've gathered, the biggest problem is that Sawyer doesn't want to rename the traditional attributes like Str and Int while at the same time wanting them to fulfill an entirely different (and counterintuitive) role. My only question is, Why?? Just rename them, for fuck's sake.

For example, if Intellect governs both damage and healing, call it "Healage" and be done with it. Or just number the attributes since you're going for an abstracted rather than a simulated system anyway. "Attribute #3 - Governs Damage and Healing". (Just imagine all the butthurt.)

 

[Rake]

Spoiler

As usual, with gamistfags herpaderping as usual and narrativists not realizing that narrativism in cRPG context boils down to effectively reducing game to CYOA.

Spoiler

As opposed to redusing the game to a virtual reality wannabe, amirite?

 

[DraQ]

redusing (...) virtual reality

What.

Having more wits makes you do more damage. A sharp tongue indeed.

At least now we know that Roguey's rabid feminism stems from an act of cunnilingus gone wrong.

 

[Rake]

redusing (...) virtual reality

What.

What what?

 

[DraQ]

redusing (...) virtual reality

What.

What what?

Fixed. Hiding those eyes behind a pair of shades won't help.

Edit:
Oh, I actually missed that:

Probably not!

The way Sawyer has things set up, scripted/non-systemic checks don't actually have to be balanced/equally represented. They're not part of the "balance equation" at all, allowing the dialogue writers and quest designers to use them as they please (within reason, of course).

That's the epitome of fail, because non- and semi-systemic checks (those that do rely on gamewide system, but are pretty much handplaced - for example locked doors and chests in a game without bashing) are typically what gates content, which is the thing players value the most.

 

[Lhynn]

DraQ dont you ever tire of arguing and defending stupidity? if a giant (or any other motherfucking thing) is sick, or has spent a lot of time isolated without being able to move, or is hit with a ray that diminishes physical strength (magical example as you clearly arent that much in touch with reality). do you think he will be able to hit as hard? even if hes using a plastic giant dildo to hit you and has no problem swinging it, truth is his physical strength is impaired so he will not be able to hit as hard.
You are literally ignoring medicine, physics and common sense in order to justify called shots.
GO.FUCK.YOURSELF. im done.