Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Blaine]

SPECIAL worked well? Are you joking? It is one of the most horrendous video game RPG systems devised. It is shallow, hardly even that customizable for an open system, and worked dubiously in the games, given the number of useless shit. Stats, abilities and skills that do nothing and are worthless compared to their cousins. SPECIAL is one of the worst parts of Fallout, and an excellent demonstration of what happens when you dump proven mechanics for programmer homebrew. The single redeeming objects of the system are the trait and perk-system, a shallow iteration of their GURPS counterpart.

I can tear D&D a new asshole as well, if you like. I know it (AD&D 2nd and 3e) intimately, particularly their flaws, which are quite numerous. 3.5e and 4e I can't help you with, since I'd given away the accursed wastes of paper (except for my Planescape campaign boxed set) long before those became a thing.

Edit: In case it's unclear, I'm not saying that SPECIAL is better than GURPS. Far from it; GURPS is vastly superior. Actually implementing GURPS into a cRPG is a different matter, however.

 

[Grunker]

Go play some RPGs and come back so we can actually take your opinion seriously. Special is fucking terrible. Reading that it is a superior alternative to GURPS will probably cause Grunker to have an aneurysm.

I can still recite passages from the GURPS 3E core rulebooks, know them like the back of my hand, and ran actual campaigns played by real, flesh-and-blood fat people, dorks and ugly chicks. It's an excellent ruleset, but implementing it properly into a cRPG?

The Maneuver-based combat of especially 4E would work nothing short of excellent in an RPG. The advanced combat rules of GURPS 4E are actually ideal for a cRPG, because they are quite simple to implement and adhere to in a turn-based environment. The very detailed rules of Advanced Combat are actually not that great for P&P (most GMs should pick out what they need and run with basic combat plus extras, which most indeed do) because they are so complex, but they'd work very well in a digital, computerized environment where the computer calculated the details.

Using the advanced combat rules from GURPS would satisfy everybody on this site, I believe, from the simulationfags like DraQ (who would be happy with rules very closely emulating how stuff would happen in real life) to mechanics-fanboys like me (who want to see mechanics that generate tactical challenges and the aspect of choice in every situation) to combatfags like Mondblut.

I'll believe it when I see it, but unfortunately, we probably never will.

In this, you are right. But have you looked at the interview RPGCodex did with Kromm/Sean Punch? The people at Steve Jackson Games would certainly enjoy the opportunity, should it ever arise.

 

[tuluse]

You guys are confusing system for content. SPECIAL didn't cause Tim Cain to put useless skills on the character sheet and they would have been there just the same if he used GURPS.

 

[Excidium]

I'll believe it when I see it, but unfortunately, we probably never will.

You see, that's the same position we adopt here for most things. And you wonder why most automatically assume combat will be shit in a game made for PST fans.

How about Betrayal at Krondor? Admittedly, it is difficult to find examples of good turn-based cRPGs in which the developers didn't use a tabletop ruleset.

I think p. much everyone here likes BaK.

And frankly it's hard to find good cRPGs of any sort. There's a reason we're all bitter cunts here and it's not because there's an overabundance of great CRPGs. If you take a look at the top 50 RPGs thread you'll notice that most votes include basically the same games and people have trouble listing more than 10.

 

[Grunker]

SPECIAL worked well? Are you joking? It is one of the most horrendous video game RPG systems devised. It is shallow, hardly even that customizable for an open system, and worked dubiously in the games, given the number of useless shit. Stats, abilities and skills that do nothing and are worthless compared to their cousins. SPECIAL is one of the worst parts of Fallout, and an excellent demonstration of what happens when you dump proven mechanics for programmer homebrew. The single redeeming objects of the system are the trait and perk-system, a shallow iteration of their GURPS counterpart.

3.5e and 4e I can't help you with

Hmm, I can see how my posts may have been a bit confusing. I detest AD&D (though I still find it better than most programmer-brewed systems and 4E was a decent attempt that failed. 3rd is a great basis but fundamentally broken. 3.5 and Pathfinder is where it's at for good iterations of D&D. Both have many, many flaws, but I've never know a system that didn't have, mind you.

Except GURPS, of course [/fanboy]

3.5E and Pathfinder outshines so many combat-systems in the areas where they are good, though, and that's the main thing.

 

[Grunker]

You guys are confusing system for content. SPECIAL didn't cause Tim Cain to put useless skills on the character sheet and they would have been there just the same if he used GURPS.

Read my posts again. SPECIAL isn't only horrendous because of the useless skills, also for the its lack of depth and lack of customization considering it is an open system. SPECIAL is quite simply a poor imitation of the system it tried to emulate. In fact, it is comparable to a bad implementation, except worse, because it's not even that, it's a video game designer who thought he could conjure up a better system in very little time than something that's been around and perfected through more than a decade.

 

[Blaine]

You guys are confusing system for content. SPECIAL didn't cause Tim Cain to put useless skills on the character sheet and they would have been there just the same if he used GURPS.

Bingo. The greatest strengths of GURPS (aside from solid core mechanics) are its modularity and customization options. You can implement shitty, useless statistics and abilities into your game just as easily using GURPS as you could using any other system... but that doesn't directly affect the argument for or against SPECIAL. It's more of a wash.

Grunker's criticisms of SPECIAL as a system still stand, although I may or may not agree with them. Frankly, I'll have to think on it.

In this, you are right. But have you looked at the interview RPGCodex did with Kromm/Sean Punch? The people at Steve Jackson Games would certainly enjoy the opportunity, should it ever arise.

I'd love to see it happen.

 

[tuluse]

You guys are confusing system for content. SPECIAL didn't cause Tim Cain to put useless skills on the character sheet and they would have been there just the same if he used GURPS.

Read my posts again. SPECIAL isn't only horrendous because of the useless skills, also for the its lack of depth and lack of customization considering it is an open system. SPECIAL is quite simply a poor imitation of the system it tried to emulate. In fact, it is comparable to a bad implementation, except worse, because it's not even that, it's a video game designer who thought he could conjure up a better system in very little time than something that's been around and perfected through more than a decade.

About 7 new posts appeared when hit send on that one.

 

[Grunker]

Blaine: I hope it will, though I think you're right that it won't. For an answer to your faulty points about SPECIAL, see the post directly above yours... replies are happening fast. SPECIAL is not very modular and customizable, which is the two most crucial attributes of an open system.

 

[Kirtai]

The fact that combat rules in P&P somehow differ from the simulation in a computer game is a made-up concept, stemming from shitty implementation in some video games. Like combat in Torment.

Ah, you're being specific to just the combat rules. I was thinking in a broader sense of the whole ruleset.

Incidentally, isn't PS:T notable for how thoroughly it violated D&D rules despite supposedly being a D&D game? And I don't mean combat rules here.

You must be confused. Beyond a few stat-checks, Torment has nothing BUT combat-rules implemented from D&D. While the implementation is actually OK, the RT system used for combat and all the superflous shit introduced to IE-combat breaks the combat in half. AD&D is a pretty shitty system, but it's still superior to most homebrewed systems in cRPGs.

Well yes, that was my point. It does awful things to the non-combat part of the D&D rules.

 

[Grunker]

Ah, you're being specific to just the combat rules. I was thinking in a broader sense of the whole ruleset.

Unless you have seen better ways to handle dialogue in video games other than rolling against Diplomacy, or better ways to get rid of traps than rolling against Disable Device, I'm not following you. In the very least, your argument is highly theoretical. A 1:1 implementation of most objects of modern rulesets, except highly social ones (like, say, social status in GURPS) is more than possible. Of course a video game developer shouldn't implement the entirety of the system (a GURPS video-game with the Lecherousness-disadvantage would be a waste of programmer-time), but the burden of proof is on you guys to tell me why exactly programmers-turned-designers need to invent systems instead of using tried-and-true P&P-ones.

Take Roguey's arguments here. She basically argues that every P&P-system is shitty. That's actually the only argument against P&P-systems that I've ever recognized. Because although I disagree very strongly with it, it doesn't start from the faulty point of view that "rules" as concepts that define behaviour differ in a P&P-game and a digital environment. The only difference is the players or the GM disobeying the rules in a P&P environment, but why would a programmer need to think of that?

Well yes, that was my point. It does awful things to the non-combat part of the D&D rules

No it doesn't. It removed them entirely. Which is quite fine if it never intended to use the mechanics of them anyway.

Why should a GURPS Fantasy game implement the grenade-rules if it doesn't intend to have grenades? Torment had no traps or fishing, so it didn't implement non-weapon proficiencies. It had a few dialogue-checks, so it just checked stats there.

Blaine: I just came up with an argument in your favour. Freedom Force's system is very tight and excellent, and not derived from P&P. The exception that proves the rule. Plus, Freedom Force's system is still inferior to HERO and GURPS' way of handling superpowers, although those would probably have been pretty shitty in a real-time environment. In any case, there you have it. And RPG with a real-time system that benefitted from homebrew. Though a turn-based GURPS Supers would surely have been even sweeter

 

[Blaine]

3.5E and Pathfinder outshines so many combat-systems in the areas where they are good, though, and that's the main thing.

I'm almost tempted to buy them read the SRD and find out for myself, but I harbor an intense dislike for class- and level-based P&P systems regardless of their other merits. I'm much more tolerant of such mechanics in cRPGs, mostly because I have no choice.

I'm actually fairly optimistic about Numenera as a P&P system and as a setting, although it's highly unlikely I'll ever actually use it on a tabletop. From what I've read of it, it's story-focused and its mechanics are more streamlined than crunchy—which isn't necessarily a bad thing in the tabletop world. As soon as the core rules are released, they'll be on my doorstep and I'll speed-read them the following Saturday.

Ever read or played Nobilis?

 

[Grunker]

I'm almost tempted to buy them read the SRD and find out for myself, but I harbor an intense dislike for class- and level-based P&P systems regardless of their other merits.

That's a personal dislike. There is no inherent superiority to an open vs. class-based system. Both have strengths and weaknesses. You are certainly allowed to favour one over the other, but you can't use that as an argument against either.

I'm actually fairly optimistic about Numenera as a P&P system

Me? Not so much. Monte is brilliant at the fundamental aspects of design, but most of his systems are extremely unpolished in their first iteration. See 3rd.

I'll speed-read them the following Saturday.

You should review them for the Codex. I'd be very interested in reading such a review, and it's pretty relevant to the interests of the Codex, considering it will be used in a new Torment game. You're quite the sharp chap and can write alright as far as I see. Interested?

Ever read or played Nobilis?

Can't say I have. What is it?

 

[Blaine]

You should review them for the Codex. I'd be very interested in reading such a review, and it's pretty relevant to the interests of the Codex, considering it will be used in a new Torment game. You're quite the sharp chap and can write alright as far as I see. Interested?

I'll review them for the Codex. It will be "Internet work" and I'll probably avoid it for several days to a week after receiving the rule books in the mail, but I can promise you several thousand words almost completely free of personal bias.

Can't say I have. What is it?

It's a high-concept, storytelling-centric system with a pretty cover. The Wikipedia article sums it up better than I can, because I haven't read it in years and it's getting late over here. I was just wondering if you'd heard of it. I own the "Great White Book" version pictured in the article.

 

[Kirtai]

Take Roguey's arguments here. She basically argues that every P&P-system is shitty. That's actually the only argument against P&P-systems that I've ever recognized. Because although I disagree very strongly with it, it doesn't start from the faulty point of view that "rules" as concepts that define behaviour differ in a P&P-game and a digital environment. The only difference is the players or the GM disobeying the rules in a P&P environment, but why would a programmer need to think of that?

The rules may not change but the capabilities of the GM do. For instance, I can see GURPS working well in a cRPG but I can't imagine trying to program a computer to handle something like the magic rules for Mage: The Ascension. Note that I'm not arguing against using P&P rules in general, only against the idea that they're automatically viable for cRPGS if they work on the tabletop. Only some will be suitable.

Well yes, that was my point. It does awful things to the non-combat part of the D&D rules

No it doesn't. It removed them entirely. Which is quite fine if it never intended to use the mechanics of them anyway.

Depends on where exactly things like the classes, level progression and stats lie.

 

[buzz]

See, this endless bickering about something that isn't exactly relevant in our context.
Planescape Torment's shtick and selling point was that it was an "anti-RPG", the cool guy who did it differently. Everyone had a generic fantasy world as a setting, they had something much more unique. Everyone had cliche characters and plots, PT had something else entirely most of the time. Everyone gave a ton of shit about combat, PT was the one where you could skip a huge part of combat by dialogue alone or where you could fight only 2 or 3 person total if you want to evade much of fighting.

The whole debate is an exercise in futility. There are many more other RPGs coming right now from where you can get your daily dose of good encounter design and good combat mechanics (not that you'd know any better, you did essentially say that Dragon Age Origins was a better RPG of 2009 than Knights of the Chalice).

Get the fuck out of here, you waste of space. You human baggage. Apply for a position at EA BioWare—I'm sure they'd be happy to hire you on as a writer for one of their feminized polyamorous visual romance novels. Perhaps Hamburger Helper will allow you to copulate with one of her fat rolls.

Sorry to burst your little bubble friend, but PT was probably one of the most influential games on what Bioware is today . They even intended some romance sideplots with FFG and Annah but they couldn't finish them.

Speaking of tabletop, PT is more like the Call of Cthulhu RPG system. Who the fuck played that one for combat? Reaching a combat situation in that one meant you just fucked up somehow, almost counted as a game over.

Just make a game focused on mysteries, exploration with survival, political intrigues, verbal disputes, mercantile challenges (well, I wouldn't make this game specifically about getting rich but it is a viable non-combat challenge). It would still have stats, items, C&C (if anything, it would have much more than PT did), skill checks and still retain what's great about it.

 

[Lancehead]

Torment's shtick was "anti-cliche RPG".

Removing combat is a terrible idea; it reduces some narrative possibilities.

 

[buzz]

Removing combat is a terrible idea; it reduces some narrative possibilities.

Yeah, that's pretty true. Though you can still create a sense of danger and death without actively going for a typical combat system.

I think that more important than removing combat altogether is to not put it as a primary or secondary concern. The worst part about the combat in Planescape Torment or Arcanum was not that it was shitty, but that it was forced down your throat at some moments during the game while it initially gave you the mindset that you can advance through the game with wit alone.

 

[Blaine]

Planescape Torment's shtick and selling point was that it was an "anti-RPG", the cool guy who did it differently. Everyone had a generic fantasy world as a setting, they had something much more unique. Everyone had cliche characters and plots, PT had something else entirely most of the time. Everyone gave a ton of shit about combat, PT was the one where you could skip a huge part of combat by dialogue alone or where you could fight only 2 or 3 person total if you want to evade much of fighting.

That's not "anti-RPG," you imbecile. It's the way RPGs should be.

RPGs shouldn't feature generic high fantasy setting after generic high fantasy setting. They shouldn't feature done-to-death races, characters, plotlines, and tropes. They (usually) shouldn't offer the player no choice but to plow through endless streams of forgettable, generic enemies. Mediocrity and creative bankruptcy are deficiencies, and shouldn't be the norm.

Sorry to burst your little bubble friend, but PT was probably one of the most influential games on what Bioware is today . They even intended some romance sideplots with FFG and Annah but they couldn't finish them.

Wild conjecture. It's true that there were romance subplots on the cutting room floor, but if PS:T was "one of the most influential" games for the BioWare of today, then they clearly ignored every lesson to be learned from PS:T except for those cut romantic subplots, which weren't even in the game.

Speaking of tabletop, PT is more like the Call of Cthulhu RPG system. Who the fuck played that one for combat? Reaching a combat situation in that one meant you just fucked up somehow, almost counted as a game over.

You're speaking to someone who owns the 20th, 25th, and 30th Anniversary editions of the Call of Cthulhu core rules (still in their packaging, of course) and who has read through the 5th and 6th editions. It's one of my favorite systems. You're quite correct (mostly), but you're also proving my point: When combat does occur, there is a motherfucking solid system of rules there to govern what transpires. You can use a hex grid, terrain and miniatures as well, if desired. It's a turn-based system! Can you believe that happy crappy?

Just make a game focused on mysteries, exploration with survival, political intrigues, verbal disputes, mercantile challenges (well, I wouldn't make this game specifically about getting rich but it is a viable non-combat challenge). It would still have stats, items, C&C (if anything, it would have much more than PT did), skill checks and still retain what's great about it.

Or we could have that and also have well-designed, meaningful, enjoyable combat, partially or even completely optional (note that I strongly agree with this preference of yours, though "optional" should never mean "always easy to avoid"), and preferably turn-based. I know, that's far too much to ask. Mere human beings apparently aren't capable of not fucking up some aspect of their game.

 

[buzz]

Wild conjecture. It's true that there were romance subplots on the cutting room floor, but if PS:T was "one of the most influential" games for the BioWare of today, then they clearly ignored every lesson to be learned from PS:T except for those cut romantic subplots, which weren't even in the game.

Neah. You also have premade characters, focus on storytelling, a lack of game-changing choices and consequences and an overall focus on style over mechanical depth. Even the "endings" are basically the same thing - TNO dies for real and goes to fight in the Blood War.
Of course, Baldur's Gate did the same stuff as well but still, it's funny to talk about the "decline" of modern gaming while mentioning PT as a hardcore game. I'd rather not address this further.

When combat does occur, there is a motherfucking solid system of rules there to govern what transpires. You can use a hex grid, terrain and miniatures as well, if desired. It's a turn-based system! Can you believe that happy crappy?

But from I remember, the game also had a pretty small number of skills related to combat. And combat itself was brutal and (in my sessions at least) game ending. It felt like something tacked on to justify itself as a tabletop RPG.

Or we could have that and also have well-designed, meaningful, enjoyable combat, partially or even completely optional (note that I strongly agree with this preference of yours, though "optional" should never mean "always easy to avoid"), and preferably turn-based. I know, that's far too much to ask. Mere human beings apparently aren't capable of not fucking up some aspect of their game.

Well, I'm just trying to look realistically at it. A perfect game would indeed have deep turn-based combat , awesome writing, great freedom of choices on how to play and so on. But a game that's going to get a couple of million dollars through Kickstarter, I'd just rather see them focus on the story and writing more - for a PT spiritual sequel, I mean.

Also, I just have this personal opinion that a game with good gameplay is a game that would deliver a classic or downright silly story. Something like Torment is meant to be a more personal journey, introspective and existential. TNO fighting or embracing his own mortality is more of a metaphor than a veritable final boss. It's more A mind forever voyaging or I have no mouth and I must scream rather than Betrayal at Krondor or Jagged Alliance 2.

 

[Blaine]

It felt like something tacked on to justify itself as a tabletop RPG.

The combat rules aren't really tacked-on, though, because they're well designed and fit properly into the rest of the system. It's true that they don't occupy half of the rulebook, nor should they. I feel as though you're under the impression that I'm very focused on combat and demand that RPGs be filled with it, but that's not the case at all. However, I do believe the possibility of combat should probably exist at nearly every turn, if desired by the gamemaster/players (or player/developers, in the case of a cRPG). In other words, if at any time the player decides to attack a bystander, insult an angry drunk, charge recklessly into a creature's lair, thumb his nose at the local constabulary, burgle someone's house (and get caught), or simply goes berserk and begin stabbing/shooting things, combat can and will happen, preferably with satisfying mechanics to make it work.

In general, I agree with Infinitron (I think this is his opinion) in that most "forced" (or semi-forced) combat encounters should be occasional, meaningful and strategically satisfying, rather than constantly plowing through trash mobs for XP and loot. If the player chooses to seek out trouble, he may end up killing lots of wargs, goblins, tigers and bandits (or being killed himself), but that's his choice. Story-relevant encounters that are difficult or impossible to avoid should be better than common trash. This can include something as humble as street thieves attacking the player. In PS:T, you had one to three street thieves attacking you at intervals just because they were there. A much better approach would have been a few (possible) meaningful, optional and strategic encounters with thieves that included actual dialog. I believe PS:T had that too, in the form of an alleyway trap baited with a false maiden in distress, but the additional brainless street thieves throughout Sigil that fought you to the death were stupid and unnecessary.

All that being said, I still flatly disagree with you that Torment is meant to be as combat-scarce as a traditional Call of Cthulhu session. It's also worth noting that Delta Green—arguably the most acclaimed tabletop campaign setting of all time, though not the most popular from a sheer numbers standpoint—is somewhat more combat-focused than standard Call of Cthulhu.

Well, I'm just trying to look realistically at it. A perfect game would indeed have deep turn-based combat , awesome writing, great freedom of choices on how to play and so on. But a game that's going to get a couple of million dollars through Kickstarter, I'd just rather see them focus on the story and writing more - for a PT spiritual sequel, I mean.

Eh, that's fair enough.

 

[suejak]

Nah. Torment really doesn't need turn-based combat. In fact, it barely needs combat.

To argue otherwise is to argue for something that isn't a spiritual successor to Torment.

Regardless of how little combat you personally believe PS:T ought to have included, the fact remains that there was quite a lot of it in the game. Your opinion is therefore irrelevant, trumped by that old bastard we call reality. The combat in PS:T would have been improved by a proper turn-based implementation of AD&D 2nd Edition's combat rules.

I like the way you carry yourself, but you don't win an argument just by saying you win. Whether there was "quite a lot of combat in the game" I don't know -- it was certainly much lighter on combat than your Baldur's Gates and was easily the lightest of the IE games in terms of time spent in combat. It was also the only IE game to really emphasize non-combat stat-use. I'd wager that it's far, far easier to pull off a pacifist (or nearly pacifist) run of PST than of any other IE game.

Your judgement in a vacuum that a "proper turn-based implementation of AD&D 2nd Edition's combat rules" would instantly improve PS:T's combat is not something I see anyone agreeing with. Good luck with that one.

I'm aware that you seem to have extended that statement to mean "...and encounters and a proper interaction between the two!!" but you might as well have just said, "PS:T's combat would have been improved by improving PS:T's combat. Then it would be better." Gets my stamp of agreement.

Anyway, I win.

 

[Blaine]

I like the way you carry yourself, but you don't win an argument just by saying you win.

I like the cut of your jib, but your statement amounted to this, essentially: "Torment barely needs combat. So there." Now that you've elaborated on that point and provided comparisons, it carries some weight with me.

In any event, I don't require agreement from Codexians that a turn-based implementation would have been an improvement over the slapdash RTwP. If most people disagree with me, it only proves that my opinion is unpopular, not that I'm in error. I can and will capitulate to superior argumentation, but most of the arguments in this thread (no matter how well stated) are incredibly subjective, and furthermore rely upon a variety of assumptions and situational elements: "the combat sucked," "the encounter design was bad," "Torment doesn't really need combat," and so on.

Few seem to have considered that even if the combat isn't fantastic and the encounter design is somewhat lacking, a turn-based approach might still have improved what did exist by making it more digestible, interactive and strategically interesting. It's not as though no one used the space bar to select spells, use consumables, and assess dicey situations. Taking a little bit longer (not 10x longer, as some have exaggerated) to work out combat in a turn-based system would, in my opinion, have made it better. Part of my personal frustration with PS:T's combat was that it was difficult to exert fine control over each character's actions. It took a few minutes longer to resolve combat? Who gives a fuck? Is it vital that you finish the game in 50 hours, rather than 60-70? Do you have a large stack of other amazing cRPGs you're just itching to play...?

...Actually, in the 1990s, the answer could have been "yes." And now I'm sad.

 

[Rivmusique]

No way. Going through any of the combat heavy areas of PS:T with a turn-based system would have been worse. The fights were pretty much all against full melee groups that didn't change for a very long time. I do not see how that would be improved by turn-based without cutting a fair few of them and adding some other enemy types in each fight.

I am with you on this new one having good TB combat though. It should still be low/no combat if the player wants to play it like that, but if you end up in a fight it should be entertaining/challenging. I see no reason for the "If the story is to be good, then combat's going to be crap, so just make it quick" attitude.

 

[hiver]

Since when do either adventure games or PS:T have QTEs?

Since when is all of TB combat - the JA2 TB combat?

Since when some retard gets to claim he is the ONE who will get to tell me that Torment should be an CYOA adventure game and that combat should be removed?

/

Furthermore.... a good combat doesnt just come out of the chosen system. Encounter design is of primary importance - and that has been already confirmed by Kevin Saunderson.


TB combat does not need be long or tedious. That depends on the mechanics, encounter design and eventual implementation..
That issue keeps getting used as a strawman argument all the time, by those that dislike TB combat.
It was heavily used in Wasteland 2 discussions and InXile is making a TB system that will try to avoid those negative occurrences.

ALSO - combat will be avoidable in Torment. If not completely all of it - then most of it - if you choose to play that way.
- that has been confirmed too. -