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

[Spectacle]

Let's check out the for....


http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64223-why-i-hate-combat-in-rpgs/

They refuse any further conversation than this. They automatically know where you are so there's no avoiding the encounter with stealth. Invisible walls form a sphere around you so there's no escape until all the bandits are dead. You fight to the death, collect the loot and XP from the bandits, then the game otherwise continues as if that encounter had never happened.

My opinion is that this has absolutely no place in a roleplaying game whatsoever.

Compare this scenario to the one I posited at the beginning. There's no proper context because the bandits just pop in out of nowhere and you never hear from them again. They're attacking you for no reason except that they're bandits and, thus, the Bad Guys. You have no choices in what answer you can give except Fight to the Death, or stand there and die and reload a previous save (and get attacked again next time you go through that area). There are no meaningful consequences because you either win and continue with the game, or you don't. It fails as a Question to pose to the player by every conceivable metric.

Yet this scenario is absurdly common; Probably 99% of your time in your average CRPG is spent wasting your time with this nonsense. Why?

Edit: (Also I know that you could take away *less filler combat* from the whole thing. But, that's not the point he/she is making.)

Edit2: Changed smilie. Fits better.

Sounds like someone who will enjoy Age of Decadence come Thursday.

 

[buzz]

Still, for me the description sounded much broader. Sometimes you fall into combat or an ambush and don't have 6 options available to avoid it and imo that's not a bad thing if its coupled with an interesting combat situation.

Well, if the game can handle it, the user you quoted can make it in such way that he doesn't even have to worry about combat much.
I mean, if you make a squishy character in Fallout or Arcanum, you go right ahead an recruit Ian or Sogg, don't start fighting every living breathing thing (you know who I'm talking about).


So in his example, instead of walking alone on a dangerous road like a dumbass, he should have hired some though muscle to intimidate the bandits or do the combat for him. Or maybe not walk on the dangerous road in the first place until he's capable of handling the bandits by himself. Or run, which is still a viable tactic in most RPGs that I've played.

 

[Rake]

I remember her saying she hates all RPG combat (yes, even the IE games), nothing ya can do about that.

Yeah, that's basically the impression I got.

You are correct. She has said that her interest in PE is solely for the PS:T part. She doesn't care about combat at all, only lore,story etc.

 

[Ignatius Reilly]

"Hail, stranger! We're bandits! Would you like to fight us?"

"No, thanks, I'm just trying to get to the next plot point."

"Very well then, carry on."

 

[buzz]

Am I reading a different fucking post or what? Where do you people get that the poster wants to skip combat completely?

 

[Duraframe300]

Am I reading a different fucking post or what? Where do you people get that the poster wants to skip combat completely?

The others got it probably from posts made by that user earlier. I got it from the way she talked about things.

If you look closely, she doesn't really talk much about ways to improve combat itself, but about ways to avoid it.

So, my first impression was *Hidden Skip-Combat button thread*. Considering what Rougey and Rake said i still have that feeling.

 

[Infinitron]

I have written a post on the Obsidian forums which turned out pretty decent, if I may say so myself: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...ive-attributes-that-people-will-actually-use/

 

[Rake]

Am I reading a different fucking post or what? Where do you people get that the poster wants to skip combat completely?

I post on the Obsidian forums, and i have seen other posts from her.
I don't say she wants the game to be without combat, but she wouldn't mind if it were. She is a pure storyfag. If you take her post to be only for making trash combat optional, i'm all for it. But many people like combat for it's own sake, so i don't think an IE successor should eliminate trash combat altogether. 2 of the 5 IE games were dungeon crawlers.

 

[Declinator]

Am I reading a different fucking post or what? Where do you people get that the poster wants to skip combat completely?

Maybe something to do with the fact that the headline of the thread is "Why I hate combat in RPGs"...

Sure, I can understand what the poster is saying but it would be ridiculous if every single situation had a another way out. If bandits ambush you I find it difficult to believe you could possibly persuade them not to take your money and to let you leave peacefully. It's somewhat like New Vegas where convincing the Legate (or whatever) to stop just seemed utterly unconvincing and somewhat strange compared to the Master in F1. Which is why I loaded the game and killed him instead.

Stealth might be an option but only if you have multiple ways of traversing (i.e. full speed, stealth, etc.) which you had to have picked before the encounter. Also depending on gear might be nice if the bandits decided not bother you (because of the intimidation factor.)

I remember her saying she hates all RPG combat (yes, even the IE games), nothing ya can do about that.

I find it amusing that you say "even the IE games".

What about Gold Box, ToEE, or KotC because if IE combat was the pinnacle of what I'd experienced in RPG combat then I might also say that I hate RPG combat. (Though BG2 did have some fun fights.)

 

[Liston]

I find it amusing that you say "even the IE games".

What about Gold Box, ToEE, or KotC because if IE combat was the pinnacle of what I'd experienced in RPG combat then I might also say that I hate RPG combat. (Though BG2 did have some fun fights.)

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that she is posting on a forum dedicated to IE successor?

 

[Rake]

I find it amusing that you say "even the IE games".

What about Gold Box, ToEE, or KotC because if IE combat was the pinnacle of what I'd experienced in RPG combat then I might also say that I hate RPG combat. (Though BG2 did have some fun fights.)

I have more fun with IE combat than ToEE. Good mechanics don't mean much if the encounter design is shit.

 

[Athelas]

The bandit example is pretty silly. What if you're attacked by demons/animals/other unintelligent creatures? Should you be able to reason with them? Also, you don't have to kill your enemies. You could (theoretically) use a Sleep spell and leave. Or a Horror spell that sends them running.

And being able to manipulate every NPC would actually be detrimental to the story.

 

[buzz]

Well that's my point, I don't think her post was about making combat optional, like what Jennifer Hepler wanted for Bioware games, but more about making the encounters more engaging.
Like the bandit example, it's not about convincing them all the time to change their minds. Sometimes you can do that, sometimes they just want to rob you of all your money instead of killing you.
Or you could have a Perception check before the ambush so you can spot them earlier and blow their ambush. Or if you kill one or two of them, or do something really menacing (summoning a giant demon or whatever) they surrender or get scared.
Or using spells, of course.

I mean, this is stuff that was already there in PoR, in Darklands, it's not about eliminating combat as much as making an encounter (not all of them, but some) be more than the combat.

EDIT:

Spoiler

Here's an example. That doesn't mean you still can't have the enemies going directly into combat, or you have a skip combat button.

 

[Duraframe300]

She posted again

Well, let me be clear: It's not that I don't think combat could ever be meaningful and interesting, it's just that it usually isn't. A good example of a game that does this well is a fire emblem nuzlocke run (no restarting chapters if someone dies). You'll inevitably have characters that you get really attached to. But to keep bringing them along, you need to level them up. To level them up, you need to put them in harm's way. If you put them in harm's way, and you screw it up, that character could die forever. Thus the tactical decisions of the game directly tie into the inter-character narrative (because if a character is dead you can't do their support paths).

(Not a perfect example though: If you're not doing a nuzlocke run then the only consequence of screwing up is to restart the chapter and replay through a few minutes of work, and in most entries in the series this is a restriction that must be self-enforced, with all the problems that entails. Furthermore, fire emblem combat is ridiculously swingy and you can lose units to the RNG even when you've done everything right.)

So, if I understand her right, it's more that every mechanic in the game has to tie into the individiual narrative for her. Which is better than skip-combat I guess, but I still disagree that this is always necessary.

 

[tuluse]

Every element of a game should reinforce it's themes (this doesn't necessarily mean narrative). Most RPGs do have a disconnect between combat and what the rest of the game is about.

Most of the posts people have re-posted here seem reasonable. Fallout lets you run from battles, and lets you use other skills to avoid combat. This is a good thing.

Now P:E is going to be a dungeon crawler+, so it's beyond the scope of the project to include all these things, but that just makes P:E a limited RPG.

 

[Duraframe300]

Every element of a game should reinforce it's themes (this doesn't necessarily mean narrative). Most RPGs do have a disconnect between combat and what the rest of the game is about.

Well, yes. But Fire Emblem battles already do that on their own. Likewise, bandits ambushing you on the road can reinforce a place in the setting.

 

[Rake]

Every element of a game should reinforce it's themes (this doesn't necessarily mean narrative). Most RPGs do have a disconnect between combat and what the rest of the game is about.

Well, yes. But Fire Emblem battles already do that on their own. Likewise, bandits ambushing you on the road can reinforce a place in the setting.

Her ideal is fine. Her examples not so much.

 

[Duraframe300]

Every element of a game should reinforce it's themes (this doesn't necessarily mean narrative). Most RPGs do have a disconnect between combat and what the rest of the game is about.

Well, yes. But Fire Emblem battles already do that on their own. Likewise, bandits ambushing you on the road can reinforce a place in the setting.

Her ideal is fine. Her examples not so much.

Yeah.That's probably why her posts irritate me (apart from talking in absolutes)

 

[Roguey]

I have written a post on the Obsidian forums which turned out pretty decent, if I may say so myself: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...ive-attributes-that-people-will-actually-use/

A meh slight rewrite of

Do not create drawbacks that are "opt-out" for the player if it still gives some benefit to the player. I.e. do not allow the player to take what is ostensibly a "drawback" that gives them a bonus to a skill pool, or some other sort of gameplay bonus, unless that drawback is very difficult/impossible to avoid. When people want to specialize a character in something, they already know what they want to do. What they don't want to do is pretty much everything but that activity. "You gain +4 to damage with broadswords but -20 to damage with wooden dowels and light maces," contains an effectively worthless drawback. The only way the drawback would ever arise in gameplay would be through some asinine heavy-handedness on the part of the game designer -- for which the player will almost assuredly resent you. A more even-handed drawback would be, "You gain +4 to damage with broadswords but attack 20% more slowly when using them." The benefit and the drawback are both realized within the same activity. The player cannot reap the benefit without suffering the penalty.

* When making trade-offs between items/skills/abilities, those trade offs must actually feel different in application or the player's choice isn't very important. For example, in the above case of +4 to damage with a 20% lower attack rate, there should be situations in which more damage per hit = better and situations in which faster attack rate = better. For example, if an armor system is threshold based (subtracts a flat damage value), doing more damage per shot always means that damage has a greater chance of getting through armor. In this case, the +4 bonus is better when used against opponents with armor. Against opponents with high health and no armor, raw DPS matters more than damage per shot. In such cases, having a 20% faster attack rate may be better if it outweighs the DPS value of the +4 in the overall equation.

 

[Infinitron]

I have written a post on the Obsidian forums which turned out pretty decent, if I may say so myself: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...ive-attributes-that-people-will-actually-use/

A meh slight rewrite of

Do not create drawbacks that are "opt-out" for the player if it still gives some benefit to the player. I.e. do not allow the player to take what is ostensibly a "drawback" that gives them a bonus to a skill pool, or some other sort of gameplay bonus, unless that drawback is very difficult/impossible to avoid. When people want to specialize a character in something, they already know what they want to do. What they don't want to do is pretty much everything but that activity. "You gain +4 to damage with broadswords but -20 to damage with wooden dowels and light maces," contains an effectively worthless drawback. The only way the drawback would ever arise in gameplay would be through some asinine heavy-handedness on the part of the game designer -- for which the player will almost assuredly resent you. A more even-handed drawback would be, "You gain +4 to damage with broadswords but attack 20% more slowly when using them." The benefit and the drawback are both realized within the same activity. The player cannot reap the benefit without suffering the penalty.

* When making trade-offs between items/skills/abilities, those trade offs must actually feel different in application or the player's choice isn't very important. For example, in the above case of +4 to damage with a 20% lower attack rate, there should be situations in which more damage per hit = better and situations in which faster attack rate = better. For example, if an armor system is threshold based (subtracts a flat damage value), doing more damage per shot always means that damage has a greater chance of getting through armor. In this case, the +4 bonus is better when used against opponents with armor. Against opponents with high health and no armor, raw DPS matters more than damage per shot. In such cases, having a 20% faster attack rate may be better if it outweighs the DPS value of the +4 in the overall equation.

It's not really the same thing, but whatever makes you feel happy

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey will like this: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/488235713674901654

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Infinitron, are you trying to get into Roguey's pants or something?

 

[Infinitron]

no

 

[Sensuki]

I enjoyed the bit at the end of the livejournal post

"* Miss B_____ did actually play exactly one game session of 4th edition D&D, and she described it as one of her worst experiences in gaming, ever."

Damn straight.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey will like this: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/488235713674901654

Dev fight, nice.

As usual Josh is right, otherguy is wrong. Also Formspring's new word filter censorship is absurd.

I enjoyed the bit at the end of the livejournal post

"* Miss B_____ did actually play exactly one game session of 4th edition D&D, and she described it as one of her worst experiences in gaming, ever."

Damn straight.

More than likely had a shit DM.