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

[Tytus]

this thread is going places.

This is the eventual fate of every thread on this site.
Every thing moves towards enthropy.

 

[hiver]

No, its great.

 

[hoverdog]

Bunga Bunga—charisma stat

 

[Helton]

Maybe, but the Spirit Eater mechanic in Mask of the Betrayer was well done --

Bwuh?

 

[Rivmusique]

It made morons cry. Good enough.

 

[Scruffy]

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

let's hope that vdweller isn't reading this

 

[Lancehead]

Maybe, but the Spirit Eater mechanic in Mask of the Betrayer was well done --

Bwuh?

Well, the mechanic wasn't exactly enjoyable to play with, thanks to D&D and the camera and the RTwP and whatever else. But it was good in the way it tied to the narrative, as the unquoted part of my sentence says.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

What is Stephen Hawking's damage rating according to Josh Sawyer?

 

[The Bishop]

Stephen Hawking doesn't do damage, he's a save or die kind of opponent. If your saving throw fails he runs you over with his motorized wheelchair.

 

[DraQ]

What is Stephen Hawking's damage rating according to Josh Sawyer?

The point is kind of moot, given that he doesn't even meet minimum STR requirements of menacing stare natural weapon.

Spoiler

Of course if PE isn't going to have stat reqs then we'll have a problem here.

 

[Tytus]

What is Stephen Hawking's damage rating according to Josh Sawyer?

The point is kind of moot, given that he doesn't even meet minimum STR requirements of menacing stare natural weapon.

Spoiler

Of course if PE isn't going to have stat reqs then we'll have a problem here.

But in fantasy, because of his body not functioning his brain power would increase. He would have mind flayer powers and wouldn't need any STR.

 

[Kalin]

Also:

 

[dunno lah]

Maybe if everyone started demanding STR req, they'd include it.

Hey, I mean it worked for crafting and durability, right?

 

[uaciaut]

What is Stephen Hawking's damage rating according to Josh Sawyer?

The point is kind of moot, given that he doesn't even meet minimum STR requirements of menacing stare natural weapon.

Spoiler

Of course if PE isn't going to have stat reqs then we'll have a problem here.

So compensating for a badly designed attribute system is done by forcing the player to have a stat in order to equip an item that allows him to perform his class' role.

Talk about artificial compensation for an attributes' lack of purpose/shitiness.

edit: meh i come out as an ass way too much

 

[Roguey]

What is Stephen Hawking's damage rating according to Josh Sawyer?

That character concept won't be supported by PoE's system.

It's also unlikely there will be strength-requirements on weapons.

The other problem it creates is tiered weapon types, which narrows certain classes/builds into using the higher tier weapons exclusively. A/D&D has never had particularly great weapon balance, but the contrast became stark in 3.X and even more clearly delineated in 4E. No fighter would regularly use a Simple Weapon in 3E because its Martial equivalents are almost universally superior. And of course, in 4E, no fighter would regularly use a Simple over a Military or a Military over Superior assuming they can take the requisite feat. More than even 3.X, 4E funnels characters into lifelong equipment types based around what's ideal for their stats. If you're wearing some form of hide armor and using a bastard sword at 5th level, you're probably going to be using more magical versions of the same stuff at 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

The reason I think this is not particularly great is because it effectively removes (or at least drastically simplifies) decision-making for the character. Entire classifications of weapons and armor wind up essentially being junk choices. E.g. medium armor in 3.X is a plague upon almost any character. If you have no Dex bonus, you're going to wear heavy armor. Once you get full plate, you're going to wear full plate forever if at all possible. If you have a high Dex bonus, you're going to wear light armor. Once you get a chain shirt, you're going to wear a chain shirt forever if at all possible.

I put STR reqs on weapons in F:NV to give more importance to STR, but I think it messed with the balance of weapons. High STR weapons didn't just have to be balanced relative to weapons in their tier. They had to be balanced relative to other weapons in their tier as superior weapons because they required an investment from the player to properly use them.

Strength is one of the most difficult attributes to find immediate and universal applications for that don't wreak havoc with other game systems. Damage superficially makes sense but makes less sense when you think about attacks that aren't powered by the physical strength of the wielder.

 

[DraQ]

Being too weak to lift your hand, nevermind sword is artificial.

The way I see it any sort of item or activity should have both the use threshold (for most stuff usable by ordinary human it should be below minimum normally achievable value, and thus apply only to sick or magically weakened individuals) and full usability threshold (at which you can use it as well as it's possible, with no penalties applying). Maybe separate penetration cap for weapons.

That's logical.

I don't see any problems with concept of class' primary stat or classes requiring particular stats above certain level. Warriors may need to be physically fit, wizards can't be morons, and monks do require certain strength of will, after all.
I don't see it running contrary to Sawyer's personal goals as long as you don't also have obsolete stats for particular classes and as long as meeting minimum class requirements in stats is enough for some particular good and effective build of that class instead of those stats being effectively max or bust.
For example a fighter that's just strong enough to use a rapier and some light armour may not have the tanking power of a maxed out STR behemoth or won't wield some huge anti-monster axe, but thanks to points spent on another stats may outperform the latter in quite a few situations even though still performing the role of a fighter in them (for example may be better at 1-on-1 with another fighter, that may be good at protecting himself against your mages).

edit: meh i come out as an ass way too much

Nah, just as an idiot.

Edit:

It's also unlikely there will be strength-requirements on weapons.

I AM A BLOATFAG.

Already said that.

 

[uaciaut]

Being too weak to lift your hand, nevermind sword is artificial.

The way I see it
That's logical

There's a contradiction here, what you see in a certain way isn't automatically logical. I could say "the way i see it strength SHOULD always affect physical stats - combat in particular, that's logical" yet you can just deride that as simulationist crap and call out your own vision of how the system should be and say that's the way it should be simulated/implemented, which is obviously not an argument.

I never said i'm necessarily against stat thresholds for equipping and/or using items (efficiently), but if a given stat (like str in the previous example) only has a role on damage via the threshold needed to be reached in order for a certain weapon to be used then that's bad design because you're not making Str in itself a desirable stat, you're making a random threshold a desirable stat. Meanwhile stats like Int which continue to affect damage or per which continues to affect crit keep on being useful stats beyond a threshold, unless you want to cap them or given them diminishing returns to even things out (which is even more dumb).

To exemplify this based off of your examples - you can make due with an int-based warrior that's barely strong enough to equip a certain type of light weapon - wouldn't you have to work around how light the weapon is and how good the equipment available is to know when to stop investing in Str? - or you go for a brainless idiot warrior that can wield a full-grown cow as a weapon in combat - doesn't that mean that once you are able to equip the heavies cow around and use it you can stop investing in str altogether and go for int or per to maximize damage.

That's the issue with using thresholds as the main stimulant to make attributes attractive for a player, you're always looking for a cap so you can stop investing in them altogether and focus on the shit that keeps improving you beyond a certain point.

Feel free to continue being smug about the shit you write and give yourself a good pat for it though :>

 

[Linden]

Man = Josh Sawyer
Wheel = CRPG conventions

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Stephen Hawking doesn't do damage, he's a save or die kind of opponent. If your saving throw fails he runs you over with his motorized wheelchair.

You're saying Stephen Hawking encourages degenerate behaviour?

 

[Kem0sabe]

 

[DefJam101]

MMORPGs have great deal in common with CRPGs. Far more than CRPGs have with P&P RPGs. MMORPGs are really just CRPGs that take place within a shared environment among thousands of hundreds of players. They interact with the player in the same manner; using video, sound, and some sort of controller for the player to give input to the system; and also largely have the same lack of creative authorial control over the game that a PnP RPGs provide.

._.

oh world of warcraft, what have you done

 

[Grunker]

i see that darkpatriot is back

why

edit: what got Lhynn butthurt enough to sig-quote the opposite of what I actually said in the thac0 discussion?

 

[DraQ]

Being too weak to lift your hand, nevermind sword is artificial.

The way I see it
That's logical

There's a contradiction here, what you see in a certain way isn't automatically logical.

Sigh.

"The way I see it" = I propose such formal system to reflect impact of strength on use of weaponry.
"That's logical" = the system I propose does conform to the effects varying levels of strength have on use of weaponry IRL.

I could say "the way i see it strength SHOULD always affect physical stats - combat in particular, that's logical"

Nope. You'd need to prove your claim.
Unless you disagree that a person may be too weak to lift and swing something or too weak to do so in a way that owuld make such attack effective, I already have.

yet you can just deride that as simulationist crap

You seriously don't even know what you don't know.

I never said i'm necessarily against stat thresholds for equipping and/or using items (efficiently), but if a given stat (like str in the previous example) only has a role on damage via the threshold needed to be reached in order for a certain weapon to be used then that's bad design because you're not making Str in itself a desirable stat, you're making a random threshold a desirable stat.

That depends on whether there is a range of weapons that full range of particular Str values desirable.
Having two thresholds - usability and lack of hindrance - certainly helps with that.

Even failing that, Str can be beneficial depending on importance of inventory management, str checks, and possible combat effects like all sorts of weapon locking and ability to stand your ground - depending on what of that is implemented and how.
You may very well need as much strength as possible if you want to be able to tank particular threats and might also need it to wield weapons effective against certain enemies.

Swinging them cattle.

There is two problems here, you see. First, you assume that STR needed for effective wielding of heaviest weapon in game will be below what a character can normally have.
Second, you assume that the biggest cow around will be unconditionally the best weapon of them all.
Third, you don't spell it out, but I'm under impression that you may think in damage/DPS dominant terms (correct me if I'm wrong) which is bloatfaggotry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*authorial control*

That player(s) have more authorial control in PnP (although the exact amount of authorial control in cRPG does vary and is inversely proportional to amount of scripting and "chunkiness" of the mechanics) is completely irrelevant to whether you can or cannot label cRPG players according to GNS model.
Same with cRPGs being typically non-social.

GNS just does not apply to CRPGs in any useful way no matter how much you try.

This simply doesn't hold.

That is not what a narativist in GNS is. A narrativist is not someone who's prime interest is in story. It is definitely not someone who is interested in experiencing pre-established story even if it has some branching. It is someone who's prime interest is in creating a story.

It doesn't change that the primary value for narrativist is story and story elements.

It's also uncommon for one to want and be able to (co)create good story, but not appreciate one created by someone else or vice versa.
In both PnP and cRPG narrativist values the story, differences about how that story comes to be are secondary although they may colour one's perception of their game experience.

Again you misunderstand what gamists are in GNS. They are those who are interested in playing the game more as a game.

Which is *exactly* what I said.

As for munchkins, I fully realize that they are degenerate, but their prime interest is the game as game, they are just more obnoxious and naive about it, so I class them as deranged subset of gamists.

Again not what simulationists are in GNS. Simulationists are people who like to play their P&P RPGs as simulations of whatever setting they are playing in, and indeed even role play their characters with an internal consistency of what their characters would do. Simulationists are also quite interested in creating stories and roleplaying their character, although they don't have the same focus on exploring themes as narrativists do. Simulationists are not the anal retentive autists you seem to think that they are. Simulationists are also not particularly tied to highly complex and realistic rule systems. They are more likely to use highly complex and realistic rule systems but many of them, myself included, prefer simpler systems that allow for greater speed of resolution and as a result more productive and fun gaming sessions.

Which, again, is what cRPG simulationists care about. They do put more stress on rulesets, because rules are more important and rigid in a cRPGs, where everything needs to be codified in one way or another and there can be no GM fiat.

(...) not only does GNS not cover all the motivations and reasons that people play RPGs it also tends to divide players as if they fall into one of the three categories. Most players enjoy all the aspects of GNS, just with different preferences for which ones they find more enjoyable than others.

So? Nothing stands in the way of considering GNS a spectrum with pure 'G', 'N' and 'S' being merely corner cases:

(You can take GN edge label with a bit of salt because I still can't really figure out what makes the alien minds out there tick.)

I find it surprising anyone has ever interpreted it in any other way - it's not terribly surprising that people don't neatly segregate according to arbitrary labels.

I'm not intending this as a criticism, but it appears to me that you haven't actually done a great deal of P&P gaming. If you had the differences between P&P RPGs and CRPGs should be very obvious and it wouldn't take much explanation.

I haven't but I don't really see it as particularly relevant here. It's hard for me to imagine someone considering consistency the king in P&P, but pissing on it in cRPG.
Feel free to prove me wrong by showing a study that there is no significant positive correlation between position on GNS spectrum in regards to cRPGs (as I postulate) and P&P in people playing both and I will personally ask DU to give me apropriate tag.

I think that is why you don't seem to have a good grasp of the GNS theory.

I seem to grasp it just fine, because it seems to describe the common part of cRPG and PnP experience.
Big model, OTOH doesn't seem terribly applicable to cRPGs as it seems to focus on social activity and creativity aspects.

So if we aren't using the GNS model for CRPG player inclinations what model can we use?

Why not? I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that it doesn't apply to cRPGs or computer games in general. Lack of social aspect or even reduced creativity don't impact division between story/drama, game/challenge and consistency/setting as leading motivation, even if those motivations may manifest somewhat differently.

It actually has a great deal of relevancy. That is why I brought it up. MMORPGs have great deal in common with CRPGs. Far more than CRPGs have with P&P RPGs.

They have one thing *NOT* in common. They are inherently social.

Typical cRPG is not. This cuts "socializer" right out, barring metagame aspect. The rest seems rather haphazard, and very reliant on minutiae of implementation, with little room open to using it in design context. If your game has proper difficulty or at least hard optional stuff (even unintentional) to do, it may appeal to achievers, but mapping out the very same optional stuff may appeal to explorers for the exact same reason (because it's there).

You can't classify games using this system maybe save for how well did meet some very vaguely defined goals - "is anything in this game hard or obscure in any possible sense?", "is this game, in some sense, complex?" and so on.
All you get this way is useless mess.

MMORPGs are really just CRPGs that take place within a shared environment among thousands of hundreds of players. They interact with the player in the same manner; using video, sound, and some sort of controller for the player to give input to the system; and also largely have the same lack of creative authorial control over the game that a PnP RPGs provide. And the motivations for players of MMORPGs and CRPGs have a great deal of overlap.

Since CRPGs lack the creative authorial control, which is one of the main drivers for the motivations of P&P RPGs, what are the motivations for CRPG players? CRPGs are primarily limited to selecting from precreated experiences and decisions that have been provided for by the game designer. This is largely true of all video games. So the question then is what precreated experiences and activities do players find entertaining in CRPGs? You can basically break them down into four groups. Combat, Exploration, Progression, and Story. As far as I know BioWare was really the first group to really hit the nail on the head and identify these in a deliberate fashion but you see RPG developers often mention some variation of them. They also work as a pretty good guage of weather a given video game is a CRPG or not. Most CRPGs include at least 3, if not all 4, of these elements. They may focus more heavily on one over the other but you will largely find the others present as well.

Interestingly these also map fairly well to Bartle's four types of MMO players. Killers - Combat. Explorers - Exploration. Achievers - Progression. Socializers - Story. It isn't perfect but if you run the four activity groups through the prism of social interaction and receiving recognition from others players it is a pretty reasonable match.

While it is still an imperfect model that can't capture all motivations for all players I think the Combat, Exploration, Progression, and Story model is much more accurate by a few orders of magnitude at modeling the motivations of CRPG players than attempting to shoehorn GNS theory to apply to CRPGs.

I also like sandbox games and am excited at the potential of games that attempt to actually generate and utilize emergent gameplay. The problem with your ideas though, as I have seen you express them in other posts, is that you seem to think that simply making something as complex and realistic as possible is automatically good game design and creates good gameplay. This is simply not true.

That depends on the player.

Complexity is actually a bad thing. People mistakenly believe that complexity in games is good and that they like complex games. But it isn't actually the complexity that they like. It is having a large number of interesting and entertaining decisions to make that people like. That is what good gameplay is. Having interesting and entertaining decisions to make. Whether those decisions are where to move, when to shoot, who to target, what to say, what skills to learn, what equipment to equip, where to travel... the list goes on and on. If your game systems are too simple they obviously won't be able to provide the same wealth of interesting decisions. Complexity is one of the costs to having more interesting decisions. Complexity isn't the goal. Complexity is actually a bad thing. It creates more work for designers to design, create, and adjust the game systems. It makes it harder for players to understand game systems so they can actually have the information to make meaningful decisions. Any time you can reduce complexity of the game's systems while still retaining the same quality and quanity of interesting decisions to make is a good thing. Any time you increase the complexity of the game's systems while not increasing the quality and quantity of interesting decisions is a bad thing.

So, tl;dr of that is that needless complexity is a bad thing.
Except something that can be losslessly simplified isn't actually complex, just needlessly complicated.

A simple thing or relationship expressed in convoluted way remains simple.

I think realism is a worthy goal for games. But how it interacts with the rest of the game systems and content has to be taken into consideration. All of the game systems and content work best when they support each other. When you are throwing in systems just in order to be more realistic, or support verisimilitude as proponents of realism in games like to refer to it now, it isn't a good thing if those systems hinder the workings of other systems in the game.

Or you can turn things on their head and instead consider what kind of systems will your realism need and what sorts of content can it support.
Mind you, we're not necessarily talking about realism in the real life sense, it may be 'just' realism in setting, which isn't actually that hard to recognize despite lacking clear RL reference - realism is that which doesn't fall apart if attacked with inconvenient questions - but even then RL makes a good scaffolding and analogue to many aspects of your setting and RL has the benefit of being internally consistent.

It's always easier to add complexity to a system. Just add an exception to handle a specific case or a specific mechanic to make something work in a more realistic way. What is harder to do is to abstract things in a satisfactory way so that a simpler more unified system can handle more cases. An important part of good game design is being able to simplify and abstract things well, not finding ways to make them more complex. Making a game has a limited amount of resources to use. Being able to economize the use of those resources, to give you the biggest bang for your buck, allows you to make better games.

Of course.

 

[imweasel]

Being too weak to lift your hand, nevermind sword is artificial.

The way I see it
That's logical

There's a contradiction here, what you see in a certain way isn't automatically logical.

Sigh.

"The way I see it" = I propose such formal system to reflect impact of strength on use of weaponry.
"That's logical" = the system I propose does conform to the effects varying levels of strength have on use of weaponry IRL.

I could say "the way i see it strength SHOULD always affect physical stats - combat in particular, that's logical"

Nope. You'd need to prove your claim.
Unless you disagree that a person may be too weak to lift and swing something or too weak to do so in a way that owuld make such attack effective, I already have.

yet you can just deride that as simulationist crap

You seriously don't even know what you don't know.

I never said i'm necessarily against stat thresholds for equipping and/or using items (efficiently), but if a given stat (like str in the previous example) only has a role on damage via the threshold needed to be reached in order for a certain weapon to be used then that's bad design because you're not making Str in itself a desirable stat, you're making a random threshold a desirable stat.

That depends on whether there is a range of weapons that full range of particular Str values desirable.
Having two thresholds - usability and lack of hindrance - certainly helps with that.

Even failing that, Str can be beneficial depending on importance of inventory management, str checks, and possible combat effects like all sorts of weapon locking and ability to stand your ground - depending on what of that is implemented and how.
You may very well need as much strength as possible if you want to be able to tank particular threats and might also need it to wield weapons effective against certain enemies.

Swinging them cattle.

There is two problems here, you see. First, you assume that STR needed for effective wielding of heaviest weapon in game will be below what a character can normally have.
Second, you assume that the biggest cow around will be unconditionally the best weapon of them all.
Third, you don't spell it out, but I'm under impression that you may think in damage/DPS dominant terms (correct me if I'm wrong) which is bloatfaggotry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*authorial control*

That player(s) have more authorial control in PnP (although the exact amount of authorial control in cRPG does vary and is inversely proportional to amount of scripting and "chunkiness" of the mechanics) is completely irrelevant to whether you can or cannot label cRPG players according to GNS model.
Same with cRPGs being typically non-social.

GNS just does not apply to CRPGs in any useful way no matter how much you try.

This simply doesn't hold.

That is not what a narativist in GNS is. A narrativist is not someone who's prime interest is in story. It is definitely not someone who is interested in experiencing pre-established story even if it has some branching. It is someone who's prime interest is in creating a story.

It doesn't change that the primary value for narrativist is story and story elements.

It's also uncommon for one to want and be able to (co)create good story, but not appreciate one created by someone else or vice versa.
In both PnP and cRPG narrativist values the story, differences about how that story comes to be are secondary although they may colour one's perception of their game experience.

Again you misunderstand what gamists are in GNS. They are those who are interested in playing the game more as a game.

Which is *exactly* what I said.

As for munchkins, I fully realize that they are degenerate, but their prime interest is the game as game, they are just more obnoxious and naive about it, so I class them as deranged subset of gamists.

Again not what simulationists are in GNS. Simulationists are people who like to play their P&P RPGs as simulations of whatever setting they are playing in, and indeed even role play their characters with an internal consistency of what their characters would do. Simulationists are also quite interested in creating stories and roleplaying their character, although they don't have the same focus on exploring themes as narrativists do. Simulationists are not the anal retentive autists you seem to think that they are. Simulationists are also not particularly tied to highly complex and realistic rule systems. They are more likely to use highly complex and realistic rule systems but many of them, myself included, prefer simpler systems that allow for greater speed of resolution and as a result more productive and fun gaming sessions.

Which, again, is what cRPG simulationists care about. They do put more stress on rulesets, because rules are more important and rigid in a cRPGs, where everything needs to be codified in one way or another and there can be no GM fiat.

(...) not only does GNS not cover all the motivations and reasons that people play RPGs it also tends to divide players as if they fall into one of the three categories. Most players enjoy all the aspects of GNS, just with different preferences for which ones they find more enjoyable than others.

So? Nothing stands in the way of considering GNS a spectrum with pure 'G', 'N' and 'S' being merely corner cases:

(You can take GN edge label with a bit of salt because I still can't really figure out what makes the alien minds out there tick.)

I find it surprising anyone has ever interpreted it in any other way - it's not terribly surprising that people don't neatly segregate according to arbitrary labels.

I'm not intending this as a criticism, but it appears to me that you haven't actually done a great deal of P&P gaming. If you had the differences between P&P RPGs and CRPGs should be very obvious and it wouldn't take much explanation.

I haven't but I don't really see it as particularly relevant here. It's hard for me to imagine someone considering consistency the king in P&P, but pissing on it in cRPG.
Feel free to prove me wrong by showing a study that there is no significant positive correlation between position on GNS spectrum in regards to cRPGs (as I postulate) and P&P in people playing both and I will personally ask DU to give me apropriate tag.

I think that is why you don't seem to have a good grasp of the GNS theory.

I seem to grasp it just fine, because it seems to describe the common part of cRPG and PnP experience.
Big model, OTOH doesn't seem terribly applicable to cRPGs as it seems to focus on social activity and creativity aspects.

So if we aren't using the GNS model for CRPG player inclinations what model can we use?

Why not? I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that it doesn't apply to cRPGs or computer games in general. Lack of social aspect or even reduced creativity don't impact division between story/drama, game/challenge and consistency/setting as leading motivation, even if those motivations may manifest somewhat differently.

It actually has a great deal of relevancy. That is why I brought it up. MMORPGs have great deal in common with CRPGs. Far more than CRPGs have with P&P RPGs.

They have one thing *NOT* in common. They are inherently social.

Typical cRPG is not. This cuts "socializer" right out, barring metagame aspect. The rest seems rather haphazard, and very reliant on minutiae of implementation, with little room open to using it in design context. If your game has proper difficulty or at least hard optional stuff (even unintentional) to do, it may appeal to achievers, but mapping out the very same optional stuff may appeal to explorers for the exact same reason (because it's there).

You can't classify games using this system maybe save for how well did meet some very vaguely defined goals - "is anything in this game hard or obscure in any possible sense?", "is this game, in some sense, complex?" and so on.
All you get this way is useless mess.

MMORPGs are really just CRPGs that take place within a shared environment among thousands of hundreds of players. They interact with the player in the same manner; using video, sound, and some sort of controller for the player to give input to the system; and also largely have the same lack of creative authorial control over the game that a PnP RPGs provide. And the motivations for players of MMORPGs and CRPGs have a great deal of overlap.

Since CRPGs lack the creative authorial control, which is one of the main drivers for the motivations of P&P RPGs, what are the motivations for CRPG players? CRPGs are primarily limited to selecting from precreated experiences and decisions that have been provided for by the game designer. This is largely true of all video games. So the question then is what precreated experiences and activities do players find entertaining in CRPGs? You can basically break them down into four groups. Combat, Exploration, Progression, and Story. As far as I know BioWare was really the first group to really hit the nail on the head and identify these in a deliberate fashion but you see RPG developers often mention some variation of them. They also work as a pretty good guage of weather a given video game is a CRPG or not. Most CRPGs include at least 3, if not all 4, of these elements. They may focus more heavily on one over the other but you will largely find the others present as well.

Interestingly these also map fairly well to Bartle's four types of MMO players. Killers - Combat. Explorers - Exploration. Achievers - Progression. Socializers - Story. It isn't perfect but if you run the four activity groups through the prism of social interaction and receiving recognition from others players it is a pretty reasonable match.

While it is still an imperfect model that can't capture all motivations for all players I think the Combat, Exploration, Progression, and Story model is much more accurate by a few orders of magnitude at modeling the motivations of CRPG players than attempting to shoehorn GNS theory to apply to CRPGs.

I also like sandbox games and am excited at the potential of games that attempt to actually generate and utilize emergent gameplay. The problem with your ideas though, as I have seen you express them in other posts, is that you seem to think that simply making something as complex and realistic as possible is automatically good game design and creates good gameplay. This is simply not true.

That depends on the player.

Complexity is actually a bad thing. People mistakenly believe that complexity in games is good and that they like complex games. But it isn't actually the complexity that they like. It is having a large number of interesting and entertaining decisions to make that people like. That is what good gameplay is. Having interesting and entertaining decisions to make. Whether those decisions are where to move, when to shoot, who to target, what to say, what skills to learn, what equipment to equip, where to travel... the list goes on and on. If your game systems are too simple they obviously won't be able to provide the same wealth of interesting decisions. Complexity is one of the costs to having more interesting decisions. Complexity isn't the goal. Complexity is actually a bad thing. It creates more work for designers to design, create, and adjust the game systems. It makes it harder for players to understand game systems so they can actually have the information to make meaningful decisions. Any time you can reduce complexity of the game's systems while still retaining the same quality and quanity of interesting decisions to make is a good thing. Any time you increase the complexity of the game's systems while not increasing the quality and quantity of interesting decisions is a bad thing.

So, tl;dr of that is that needless complexity is a bad thing.
Except something that can be losslessly simplified isn't actually complex, just needlessly complicated.

A simple thing or relationship expressed in convoluted way remains simple.

I think realism is a worthy goal for games. But how it interacts with the rest of the game systems and content has to be taken into consideration. All of the game systems and content work best when they support each other. When you are throwing in systems just in order to be more realistic, or support verisimilitude as proponents of realism in games like to refer to it now, it isn't a good thing if those systems hinder the workings of other systems in the game.

Or you can turn things on their head and instead consider what kind of systems will your realism need and what sorts of content can it support.
Mind you, we're not necessarily talking about realism in the real life sense, it may be 'just' realism in setting, which isn't actually that hard to recognize despite lacking clear RL reference - realism is that which doesn't fall apart if attacked with inconvenient questions - but even then RL makes a good scaffolding and analogue to many aspects of your setting and RL has the benefit of being internally consistent.

It's always easier to add complexity to a system. Just add an exception to handle a specific case or a specific mechanic to make something work in a more realistic way. What is harder to do is to abstract things in a satisfactory way so that a simpler more unified system can handle more cases. An important part of good game design is being able to simplify and abstract things well, not finding ways to make them more complex. Making a game has a limited amount of resources to use. Being able to economize the use of those resources, to give you the biggest bang for your buck, allows you to make better games.

Of course.

Prof. Dr. Dr. Draq, thank you for your brief and succinct post on whatever the fuck you were writing about.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

DraQ
Did you channel sea or are just butthurt? That is some textwall

Int affects damage, but that is do to critical effect (target the more vulnerable spot)

And the stronger wielder are beyond the min. Str req, the more damage you will do depending on the weapon. Something like a hammer will scale much better with higher strength beyond the minimum, whereas additional strength is negligible with an epee.

You are streamlining strength to just minimum requirement.