You hate Bethesda, here is a link.

[cmagoun]

This is a fair argument, and one that I think I alluded to in this post or elsewhere.

You might have and I apologize for being so late to the discussion.

But I'm not altogether sure that it's a winner because I'm skeptical that GMs/DMs are able to stick to the rules even when there are rules...

My experience was that the rules end up being less significant in three ways...

I think that your experience is probably typical, in that a lot of GMs are habitual fudgers. I also think your conclusion is valid: If a GM is a habitual fudger, then the game he is playing isn't much different than a freeform game. But then, are the dice and stats really getting in the way of the story anymore than an arbitrary GM would? In the case of the AD&D "fudger" GM, the success of the PCs' endeavors would be ensured by GM fiat, but the *how* of the action would be determined by dice. This is much like your game, except that the how is a little less in the direct control of the GM.

I am still not a huge fan of this mode of play. I feel that habitual fudging tends to rob a game of drama and excitement (again, we are mostly talking about action sequences I think). So let's think about a different mode of play. Imagine a game in which all of the players agreed that the rules would be followed strictly, except in the cases where the GM explicitly indicated that he would be using house rules. Players also understood that character deaths were possible and that, aside from any game rules that allowed PCs to cheat death, the GM would not save them.

I think this would make for a vastly different play experience than a typical fudged game. In this game, players would have to consider each and every combat carefully. They would likely choose to avoid many fights -- not because they could not win, but because losses would be too high a probability. This would lead to more parley and more subtlety. When the PCs did enter combat, they would have to use better tactics to ensure a quick victory and if things were going badly, they would be more likely to retreat.

The GM on the other hand, would have to be more careful in his planning as well. He would have to make sure that the combat encounters were beatable within the rules of the game, or he would have to place ample clues in the world that a given encounter was too tough for the PCs. He would have to write in more ways for the PCs to resolve their quests without violence. Suddenly, characters that can sneak, research, or parley become as important as those that can fight. Spells that give information about your enemies become as sought after as those that burn them to ash.

It would take a great deal of work, but it would make for a pretty cool game.

That said, I'm sure in geekier crowds, there are more would-be players and the DMs are able to actually kill people. But in my experience you never had more than four or five people who were fun to play with, so why antagonize them with stupid dice rolls?

Largely, this all comes down to playstyle and what you want out of an RPG. Some people want the story to drive the action. Others like to construct a starting situation and then allow the action to drive the story. Some are more interested in a collaborative storytelling exercise and others are interested in playing a wargame with a context.

Everyone in the game has to agree to the ground rules at the beginning of the game. Will the GM fudge to save the PCs? Will he fudge to keep the villains alive so as to make a more "dramatic" final battle?

Indeed, to this day I don't really understand how AD&D is actually playable... How can that be fun?

Eh, AD&D is not a great game, but it is playable as is evidenced by the 1000s of people that have played it over the years. Some of those people have played by the rules, I am sure of it. Now whether AD&D is fun, or a good game design, is certainly up for debate. It hardly matters though. There are tons of good house rules that address your points. Even better, there are tons of other games that address your points and are much, much better games than AD&D.

We both agree that (computer) games need to be transparent. The question is not *whether* the player should see the rules but rather *how* the player should see the rules. I'm inclined to say it should be through non-numerical feedback -- graphics, the way the world reacts to you, etc.

I agree with you here in many ways and I imagine that it is certainly possible that a program could in fact be programmed in such a way so as to give me proper feedback. Here is the thing: As a player, I want to make lots of decisions and I really want my decisions to be meaningful. The reason that I personally like to see the numbers is because I feel that the numbers allow me to make more choices and deeper ones. So, in terms of combat, I can choose the fast sword that has a higher chance of a critical hit, or the slower sword that does more damage each and every swing. In terms of character development, I can choose to spend points for a 10 in sword skill, understanding that this gives my a 80% chance to hit an orc, or I can put those points into diplomacy with the knowledge that I now have a 60% chance to talk to the orc.

Can you do this without numbers? Yes, I think so. But it is less opaque to say 60% than it is to say "better than average".

I should add, too, that even if we're obliged to keep the *rules* of AD&D, I think it's godawful and frankly embarassing that we keep the *dice* of AD&D. Most of AD&D "decisions" really were made by the dice, not the player, if you played strictly by the rules. No matter how well I role-played my barbarian warrior, if I rolled three 1's on his HP rolls, at level 3 he would be a total joke. And if in battle against an orc, I rolled back to hit rolls, it wouldn't matter how well I planned out the fight.

Here, I don't agree entirely. Your hit point complaint is valid, but is also an easily fixed flaw in that particular game. On the other hand, if you never felt that your planning affected the outcome of a battle (or other situation), then I would attribute that to bad GMing, not a flaw in using dice or a particular rules system.

In any case, thanks again for the discussion,

 

[yipsl]

I totally agree with you and that's why I can't wait for Oblivion.

I guess it will take less than an hour playing it for you to come here and post how you hate Oblivion. I sugest you choose at least one weapon skill and one armor skill if you wan't the game to be at least playable. I would stay away from using h2h or bow as your main combat skills. MSFD posts in this mater were less than conclusive.

Well, I'm taking h2h, magic and stealth skills. I don't plan on playing it like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic (ie Half Life Too, and probably with StarForce Ugh!). I plan on playing it like I wanted to play Daggerfall and like I could play Morrowind.

I had too much combat against humans in Daggerfall, otherwise, it's my second favorite CRPG after Betrayal at Krondor. I still go h2H in Daggerfall and travel around dungeons fighting as little as possible since high Personality plus not holding a weapon sometimes results in no combat with humans. I really only prefer fighting monsters and there I prefer magic to melee.

We'll see how it goes, since I'm building a new second PC with a P4 630 and ECS RS400-A combo I got at Fry's for $179, I probably won't have the money for Oblivion until April 1. Then if the game's a total failure, as many Codexers think, it will be an April Fools joke on me and my Juggling Mage character.

TES is an Action RPG. There are subgenres. As far as today's games go, Morrowind was a true action RPG, but so was Gothic 2. There are very few true RPGs in the vein of Darklands or Betrayal at Krondor anymore.

As far as visuals, all games go for the best graphics of their generation, the best the devs can provide. That's a given, so I do not fault Oblivion for visuals.

I fault Oblivion for removing class and weapon features, cultural aspects of the TES game world, character customization and lore. That's the dev's fault, though the suits were probably counting the numbers and looking over their shoulders.

For example, Emil, who's basically an okay guy, said over at Blood and Shadows that it's not a good idea to be constrained by really obscure lore: the race of the being based on the mother's race -- hence no half orcs or half elves, with the Bretons a unique exception, in TES. I stated that what makes TES is the lore.

Believe me, if TES goes further towards being a Half Life Too, then it will be more enjoyable than a shooter, but it will just be Dungeon Hack with nice visuals. It will be solely a combat dungeon simulator with the appearance of being a world. I don't think it's there yet. Oblivion has a few redeeming qualities and they can add more necessary features back in.

People complained about the combat and the beast races not having boots and closed helmets right after Morrowind came out. Now many people don't like what they've got. Always be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Let's hope the CS issue is not as bad as it seems. Downloading the full CS with full permissions to import 3DS models and use Havok and other third party content (as in HL2's Garry's mod) is what we all hope for. I'm simply afraid that suits look at the CS as competition for their alleged cash cow of 2 two dollar downloadable mods a month.

Spare me, without Holidays, there's no way I'm downloading any mod, whereas I wanted holidays and i would consider each additional one on a case by case basis. As is, it's a matter of principle.

MSFD, if you read this, then go tell the suits that us old school TES gamers want our holidays from Arena and Daggerfall back. I don't care if Pete's nephew, Wonder Woman's Husband's secretary's grandkid or whatever group of new gamers they polled think that holidays are basically WoW santa hats and won't buy it. They don't know what they're missing and you guys at Bethsoft really, really need better focus groups of all ages and RPG experience.

 

[OverrideB1]

(snip)
....you guys at Bethsoft really, really need better focus groups of all ages and RPG experience.

That's possibly the truest statement anyone has made vis-a-vis Oblivion