Gothic being a good example: mis-timed dodging, blocking, attacking. But at least in Gothic you know that properly pulling off attacks is entirely on you,
And that's why combat in Gothic is more action than RPG.
In an RPG your input in combat should stop at tactics (positioning, who to attack etc). The moment you're "pulling of attacks" with your keyboard skills you're not discussing RPGs anymore. And if you want that in RPGs, then you don't want RPGs.
how soRandomness is a fundamental component of RPG combat systems.
What the fuck, are you a retard? Oh wait, sorry, village idiot.
Says the person that claims that if I want to be able to pull off my own attacks I suddenly don't want RPGs... but Gothic is an RPG, and I like Gothic.
You do know there's more to RPGs than just diceroll combat, right?
Not that I mind, since I reload whenever they permanently kill a party member.
You are a fucking retard. Kill yourself.
Yes, you fucking retard, which is why I said Gothic is still an RPG despite having its combat outcome influenced by player dexterity.
Because stats still matter.
If you want that, you don't want RPGs. Period.
Maybe you want action RPGs or whatever.
But that doesn't mean everything should follow this formula. Or that this is some kind of universal solution to problems that are really only in the heads of newfags which suspiciously started showing up along with the PoE and who are all, of course, master game designers, even better than Sawyer and all eager to fix them old and terrible games. Instead of fucking off and playing their newfag games.
Also the initial question was about determinism vs rolls. Then you came with your hurr durr but itz better to hit myself than my character loooool. Like there's only 50/50 random rolls and action combat. Nothing else.
You fucking retard.
Fucking newfags. Go play your newfag games. These games were not made for you and your newfag brains, therefore you have no place playing them.
Don't know if you realized, but this is why Beholders are considered to be so dangerous. Because they can kill you instantly with one failed saving throw. That's the whole point.
Not that I mind, since I reload whenever they permanently kill a party member.
Don't know if you realized, but this is why Beholders are considered to be so dangerous. Because they can kill you instantly with one failed saving throw. That's the whole point.
Not that I mind, since I reload whenever they permanently kill a party member.
And still you are whining?
Ok so everyone ignored this post...Exactly - it eliminates savescumming in a smart way.XCOM is a great example of that.Computer RPGs have only pseudorandom numbers, so this whole discussion appears misguided.
Pseudorandomness - that's a different kind of thing than - randomness, and it kinda eliminates some extreme situations. Think about it - when you grab a d20 and perform an infinite number of rolls (fawking mind blowing) 5% of your rolls will result in 1, right? But when you perform any countable number of rolls in a row - be it 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 etc. it IS possible, no matter how small the probability, that EVERY one of your roll will result in 1. Such event CAN happen in real life. And just thinking about getting 1 for the 1000000 time in a row is weirdly frightening...
I'm not even sure why anyone would want an RPG without some sort of random factor. It would be completely boring in combat if you auto-hit everything every time you swung a weapon and did a set amount of damage instead of a range of damage, you never had an option to have a critical hit or anything interesting. Imagine an RPG like that:
DM: You come across some goblins.
Player: I kill them.
DM: They all die due to you having high enough stats. Good job. But, there's a troll behind them you can't defeat with your stats, so he kills you. Ready to roll up a new character?
I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose. I often hear them whine about losing 'only because the RNG sucks'. The losing makes them feel bad about themselves so they blame RNG to make themselves feel better. Then they decide RNG sucks, and if it did not exist they could be properly rewarded for their 'skilz' instead of being victimized by the RNG. I am just guessing though, I really don't get it..
Rng in RPGs is a simplification. Especially in turn based games rng is supposed to contain all the variables we don't see on screen. But the problem is we don't see any representation of those variables. We just see two guys standing next to each other. Then we get a hit or miss when we try to do something. How the hell can you miss a stationary target so close? The reasons are not shown. We don't see any movement because in all turn based rpgs you either move OR attack. Never both at the same time. We donät aim. We throw a dice. It is harder to hit moving target than something sitting still. But all turn based rng represents fights as static environments. As such the rng itself is just a probability factor that changes with range. It is not at all like what we think it is. Rng is not represeation of real life unknowns and knowns but a simple game mechanic that has nothing to do with real life.
This is why rng is not representation of real life probabilities in RPGs. It is combination of numbers where it is really just range multiplier, weapon multiplier, player skill multiplier that change one base probability number. It is not situation specific skill based event like all real life actions. It is a statistical probability where you take infinite amount of specific situations and work out a generic averaged number and then make it random dice roll.
But the system is what it is. In the end one of the problems is not the rng. But the binary nature of it. Hit or miss. One way to combat this could be variance. For example a 95% hit chance should never have 5% miss. Instead a bad hit should be something like less damage. But in the end the turn based combat needs to somehow add movement, aiming and dodging so at least the rng numbers make sense. Fiddling with the rng chance is not enough. One way is to add player states. If you are aiming you have high chance and variance to hit. But your dodge is low because you are stationary and focused on one thing. It makes the system more intuitive when all this info is available. Player does not need to assume he is aiming at standing stationary target. He can see the reasons exactly why something is something.
One big problem with rng is that is a statistical probability of multiple attempts averaged into one attempt. When rng is used for one single event it becomes all about luck. Rng needs multiple attempts and repetition to work. A machine gun with each bullet having 95% hit chance works fine because the luck averages out when you make a 8 bullet burst at an opponent. But a sniper rifle doesn't work because it is one event. It is always about luck. Variance can help but not every sniper rifle shot can hit or your weapon balance is off.
I hate it when people think player skill should be equal to character skill or vice-versa. It's not the same thing. You might be quick, but your character could be clumsy oaf due to his stats. Or, you might be the clumsy oaf, but your character is quite skilled. In either case, the game should reflect what your character or characters are, and not what you are. To think otherwise misses the point of what RPGs are all about.
Ironically your character could be dumb as hell due to his stats, but he will always obey your superior sense of strategy and tactics. I think we need a new diceroll that makes your own characters disobey your orders in combat. Or better yet, make the game play itself! Nothing speaks "superior roleplaying" than a dumb character failing to obey basic tactics like using chokepoints against hordes of enemies.
If you're playing someone who is dumb as rocks in a single-player CRPG, then combat is the least of your worries.
What I was trying to say is that as long as the maximum chance to do something in PnP RPG is like 95%, then there's always a probability that you'll get that 5% result multiple times in a row. Your character can be an absolute beast, but the dice can fawk you up pretty easily. You might be POTENTIALLY good at something but the dice has the power to completely ruin you. And that's the problem of randomness in RPGs...
Ironically your character could be dumb as hell due to his stats, but he will always obey your superior sense of strategy and tactics. I think we need a new diceroll that makes your own characters disobey your orders in combat. Or better yet, make the game play itself! Nothing speaks "superior roleplaying" than a dumb character failing to obey basic tactics like using chokepoints against hordes of enemies.
Depends on the kind of game you're playing. If you're playing a proper CRPG that includes a party of characters, there is likely a leader who is calling the shots. Unless the character in question is a functional retard incapable of following simple instructions or tying his own shoelaces, there's no reason he cannot be a part of the strategy.
Combat in a game with no randomness is simply a puzzle with one solution. Its zork-- its an adventure game. There would be no point to having combat or levels or stats. You either do, or you don't. It would be tedious with no replayability, no tension, and no strategy beyond finding a way to make your number be high enough to win. I guess you could make a more complicated deterministic model like chess, but chess is boring and sucks.
I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose.
Combat in a game with no randomness is simply a puzzle with one solution. Its zork-- its an adventure game. There would be no point to having combat or levels or stats. You either do, or you don't. It would be tedious with no replayability, no tension, and no strategy beyond finding a way to make your number be high enough to win. I guess you could make a more complicated deterministic model like chess, but chess is boring and sucks.
Chess is a game that is still being played more than 1'000 years after its inception, and it currently has 100s of millions of fans. So we will have to disagree on that.
Also, what you are describing is not how chess, its variants, and other chess-like games necessarily work. There does not have to be a single solution. It is possible that there is theoretically an optimal solution (as far as proper chess is concerned, we don't know yet), but that optimal solution does not have to be the same one in all playthroughs. There is randomness and choice in chess/chess-like games too, just of a different nature (e.g. initial conditions).
I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose.
Exactly the opposite. When you lose in deterministic games, you have noone to blame but yourself.
Fallout, for instance. Playing a dumb character means he should pretty much be unable to win the game