The General Gaming Thread 3: The Innovation Sensation that's sweeping the Nation

[Morty]

Then what are you saying? What, exactly, do you want from an RPG that you feel Divinity: Original Sin does not provide?

I like games to surprise me and try out something new. Also, more importantly, break the D&D-shaped rut fantasy RPGs are stuck in. Even the ancient Baldur's Gate games allow me for more freedom in character creation than most modern RPGs, especially if I mod them. I don't know if Divinity really is as typical as it looks. It might not be. But paying $30 for it is not a risk I'm willing to take. Maybe when it's cheaper.

In the absence of restricted roles characters will tend to converge mechanically, because they will converge around the optimum for the system.

Any specific examples?

You should really address the other thing I said though, restricted mechanical roles can reinforce narrative presentation of characters, and no matter what you call the roles the slots they fit into are generally going to be similar shapes (stabby one, sneaky one, shooty one, 'splodey one).

Nope, not seeing it at all. To continue with your Dragon Age: Origins example, if you got rid of the fossilized warrior/rogue/mage trinity... I fail to see how it would affect the narrative presentation of characters. The only thing that would need to remain is the fact that mages are their own breed - but that's what the origins are for, and in case of NPCs, whether they're classified as mages or not. Can't say I'd miss the "single-player MMO raid" style of party management, either. How does the personality and history of Sten, Alistair or Zevran change if we use more flexible mechanics for magic-less characters?

[Mx.Silver]

Then what are you saying? What, exactly, do you want from an RPG that you feel Divinity: Original Sin does not provide?

I would imagine the complaint is that it clings too closely to old traditions/conventions/cliches instead of trying something new or different. That they're sticking to the warrior/wizard/rogue/ranger design because it's 'safe' or just because it's the default.

Honestly, while I do enjoy a lot of older-school RPGs, I can empathise with this. As a genre, RPGs have an awful lot of sacred cows that get trotted out time and time again, to the point where there is a definite sense that thing might be more interesting if they weren't. Particularly if they're only being used for the sake of tradition, rather than because of what they bring on their own merits.

EDIT: Ninja'd.


Although I would echo that I don't really think DA:O is a great example of character differentiation through mechanics. Particularly since most of said differences start to get very small once you start comparing characters of the same class (with the exceptions of Shale and the Warhound, both of whom are essentially unique classes in the first place)

[Morty]

I would be more precise and say it's fantasy RPGs that are this way. RPGs in other genres, such as Mass Effect or Shadowrun: Returns, seem to be more willing to experiment.

[Zevox]

Any specific examples?

I know that was a criticism I had of Xenosaga Episode 2 - and to a lesser extent Episode 1. In Episode 2 every character had access to the same large tree of abilities to learn, which mostly just lead to everyone picking up the same few most useful abilities: healing magic and spells which granted elemental effects to their attacks (since striking enemies' weak points was extremely important in that game) being the most prominent I can recall, though I know there were more, I just haven't played the game in years. In Episode 1 there was a lesser issue where each character could learn an ability or two from their teammates, which again just meant it was best to spread the good healing magic around so everybody could do that if need be.

[GloatingSwine]

Any specific examples?

Most Final Fantasy games, despite setting the characters up as being of certain broad types (cloud is the stabby one, Aeris is the 'splodey one, for instance) allow every character to access all available types of combat with roughly even proficiency, every Elder Scrolls game after Arena is similar. Everyone starts out with An Idea for their character but they generally end up as the same heavy armoured spellslinger with a sword and bow who sneaks around a bit because the skill system tends to homogenise everyone in the end. If any character can do anything equally, then everyone will be doing the mechanically optimal thing in the end.

Nope, not seeing it at all. To continue with your Dragon Age: Origins example, if you got rid of the fossilized warrior/rogue/mage trinity... I fail to see how it would affect the narrative presentation of characters. The only thing that would need to remain is the fact that mages are their own breed - but that's what the origins are for, and in case of NPCs, whether they're classified as mages or not. Can't say I'd miss the "single-player MMO raid" style of party management, either. How does the personality and history of Sten, Alistair or Zevran change if we use more flexible mechanics for magic-less characters?

Take Alistair as a specific example. As a character, he has an idealised chivalric view of what the Grey Wardens (and to a degree Templars) are supposed to be. He's self sacrificing and believes that being in a position to make that sacrifice is a great honour (which is his grounds for opposing Loghain's induction, because he's "not worthy" of being a Grey Warden, despite the Wardens being a) notoriously unchoosy and b) an actual death sentence). His personality is reinforced by his default combat style, the sword and board warrior who places himself at risk for others, because in Dragon Age the sword and board tree is the tank tree. His personality would not be appropriate for a rogue archetype, it would be in conflict with his mechanical implementation if he were built and used as a rogue.

Likewise Sten and Oghren are written as characters who much prefer direct confrontation to subterfuge (though Oghren probably thinks subterfuge is a cocktail), and so it just makes more narrative sense for them to be restricted as warriors.

[tonberrian]

I like games to surprise me and try out something new. Also, more importantly, break the D&D-shaped rut fantasy RPGs are stuck in. Even the ancient Baldur's Gate games allow me for more freedom in character creation than most modern RPGs, especially if I mod them. I don't know if Divinity really is as typical as it looks. It might not be. But paying $30 for it is not a risk I'm willing to take. Maybe when it's cheaper.

It seems to me, that in order to overcome an obstacle in an RPG, you must either sneak, kill, talk, or shenanigan your way to your goal. I'm not really sure if you have an issue with that setup, and if you do, I don't really know what to tell you, other than to ask what you would prefer to be able to do instead. The fact that these different solutions tend to dovetail into sets of skills which we identify as "D&D stereotypes" seems irrelevant to me.

[Mx.Silver]

It seems to me, that in order to overcome an obstacle in an RPG, you must either sneak, kill, talk, or shenanigan your way to your goal. I'm not really sure if you have an issue with that setup, and if you do, I don't really know what to tell you, other than to ask what you would prefer to be able to do instead.The fact that these different solutions tend to dovetail into sets of skills which we identify as "D&D stereotypes" seems irrelevant to me.

The overwhelming majority of the differences between the stereotypical classes are significantly visible in the 'kill' category of getting your goal. Probably because the overwhelming majority of obstacles in RPGs are of the 'things that need killing' variety.
'Speak' and 'Shenanigans' might be restricted a little depending on your choice, and if 'sneak' is a meaningful approach (which it often isn't) that'll generally be unique to 'rogue' - but this is both a fairly minor part of the distinction. Nor is it the source of said distinction. That source is, largely, D&D.

The division into those archetypes doesn't 'dovetail into' the D&D stereotypes, it stems from them. The history of WRPGs is full of games that either directly adapted the D&D ruleset of the day or were heavily influenced by it. Enough that it became a convention, which is the main reason for it's ubiquity in the genre.

[tonberrian]

The overwhelming majority of the differences between the stereotypical classes are significantly visible in the 'kill' category of getting your goal. Probably because the overwhelming majority of obstacles in RPGs are of the 'things that need killing' variety.
'Speak' and 'Shenanigans' might be restricted a little depending on your choice, and if 'sneak' is a meaningful approach (which it often isn't) that'll generally be unique to 'rogue' - but this is both a fairly minor part of the distinction. Nor is it the source of said distinction. That source is, largely, D&D.

The division into those archetypes doesn't 'dovetail into' the D&D stereotypes, it stems from them. The history of WRPGs is full of games that either directly adapted the D&D ruleset of the day or were heavily influenced by it. Enough that it became a convention, which is the main reason for it's ubiquity in the genre.

The fact that most obstacles in rpgs being limited to "things that need killing" is a symptom of bad design, IMO. I like Shadowrun Returns because you don't get experience from surviving individual battles - rather, you get experience from achieving objectives, and bypassing fights is, in fact, encouraged by the limited healing available.

I'm also failing to see the distinction between a class system and D&D's class system. Are there solutions to problems other than sneaking, stabbing, talking, or using some supernatural ability to change the rules? And if there isn't, why is having classes that emphasize one or two of sneaking, stabbing, talking, or supernatural abilities bad design?

[Mx.Silver]

The fact that most obstacles in rpgs being limited to "things that need killing" is a symptom of bad design, IMO.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's bad design - you can make a very well designed RPG based primarily around combat. The problem is more that almost all RPGs are designed based primarily around combat so it gets boring.
This is also the main problem with D&D-esque class systems: it's not so much that they're bad in and of themselves, it's that they're ubiquitous in fantasy themed games.

I'm also failing to see the distinction between a class system and D&D's class system.

A D&D style class-system is a specific subset of class systems which has a number of distinguishing features. For one, classes tend to be 'strict' - as in most of the skills and abilities will be determined primarily by your class, with ones that aren't either being limited or requiring you to level another class in addition to or instead of it, options for which will often be restricted if they're present at all. For a counter-example Shadowrun Returns has a much 'looser' class system - from what I recall of the base game you could pretty much take whatever you wanted if you invested in the stats.
There's also the way they tend to break down the division of abilities: warriors get to tank and smash things; rogues sneak and stab/shoot and wizards are squishy and do basically everything else because magic. As

As mentioned above, it's not that this is necessarily bad - it's just that so many games use it. To the point where it's practically the only such class system you see in fantasy RPGs.

Are there solutions to problems other than sneaking, stabbing, talking, or using some supernatural ability to change the rules? And if there isn't, why is having classes that emphasize one or two of sneaking, stabbing, talking, or supernatural abilities bad design?

Well, it can lead to dead weight party members. The thing about class systems is that they tend to be used in party based games (mainly to designate different combat roles, which there can be some merit towards doing). The difficulty here is that your different solutions are all mutually exclusive, so if you have a varied party of characters then it's very likely that at least one character is going to be of little use, if not outright detrimental, no matter what option you pick. This can be a serious problem when one of these solutions requires full party co-operation to work. Stealth is a major example here as is by it's nature you really all need to be capable at it if it's going to be viable(see also the comic). Combat also tends to be similarly demanding.
A common result of this are 'tax characters' - a character of a class (usually theif/rogue in D&D-esque systems) that can handle problems which don't need co-operation taken as a necessity by a party designed to handle an option that does, which said 'tax character' seldom contributes much towards.




As a side note in regards to your first question: it's not uncommon for games to have there be an alternate solution available that can be discovered through investigation/exploration (or, sometimes, puzzle-solving).

[factotum]

For a counter-example Shadowrun Returns has a much 'looser' class system - from what I recall of the base game you could pretty much take whatever you wanted if you invested in the stats.

You know what's another good counter-example? Divinity: Original Sin! Since that game is what started this discussion I thought it was worth re-iterating that point. In D:OS a mage can pick locks and a warrior can cast healing spells--there's absolutely no restriction on what each class can do; in fact, the only thing the class selection actually does is determine starting skills and gear.

[Knaight]

In the absence of restricted roles characters will tend to converge mechanically, because they will converge around the optimum for the system.

This only applies if there is a single optimum, and even then local maximums can throw it off. If the game involves more than one player character, it also gets into the matter of whether the optimum set is actually a bunch of mechanically identical characters, which is frequently isn't.

[Morty]

I know that was a criticism I had of Xenosaga Episode 2 - and to a lesser extent Episode 1. In Episode 2 every character had access to the same large tree of abilities to learn, which mostly just lead to everyone picking up the same few most useful abilities: healing magic and spells which granted elemental effects to their attacks (since striking enemies' weak points was extremely important in that game) being the most prominent I can recall, though I know there were more, I just haven't played the game in years. In Episode 1 there was a lesser issue where each character could learn an ability or two from their teammates, which again just meant it was best to spread the good healing magic around so everybody could do that if need be.

Most Final Fantasy games, despite setting the characters up as being of certain broad types (cloud is the stabby one, Aeris is the 'splodey one, for instance) allow every character to access all available types of combat with roughly even proficiency, every Elder Scrolls game after Arena is similar. Everyone starts out with An Idea for their character but they generally end up as the same heavy armoured spellslinger with a sword and bow who sneaks around a bit because the skill system tends to homogenise everyone in the end. If any character can do anything equally, then everyone will be doing the mechanically optimal thing in the end.

I'm familiar with neither Xenosaga nor Final Fantasy - well, of course I know of the latter, I just never played any of those. But in every TES game I've played, I've been able to maintain "purity of build" without problems.

Take Alistair as a specific example. As a character, he has an idealised chivalric view of what the Grey Wardens (and to a degree Templars) are supposed to be. He's self sacrificing and believes that being in a position to make that sacrifice is a great honour (which is his grounds for opposing Loghain's induction, because he's "not worthy" of being a Grey Warden, despite the Wardens being a) notoriously unchoosy and b) an actual death sentence). His personality is reinforced by his default combat style, the sword and board warrior who places himself at risk for others, because in Dragon Age the sword and board tree is the tank tree. His personality would not be appropriate for a rogue archetype, it would be in conflict with his mechanical implementation if he were built and used as a rogue.

Likewise Sten and Oghren are written as characters who much prefer direct confrontation to subterfuge (though Oghren probably thinks subterfuge is a cocktail), and so it just makes more narrative sense for them to be restricted as warriors.

Sure. Now explain to me, if you'd be so kind, what would change if we threw them into a more flexible character creation system and had them start with abilities geared towards those roles.

It seems to me, that in order to overcome an obstacle in an RPG, you must either sneak, kill, talk, or shenanigan your way to your goal. I'm not really sure if you have an issue with that setup, and if you do, I don't really know what to tell you, other than to ask what you would prefer to be able to do instead. The fact that these different solutions tend to dovetail into sets of skills which we identify as "D&D stereotypes" seems irrelevant to me.

You're painting things in incredibly broad strokes, here, and to say that D&D-style classes are the only logical progression is a huge overstatement. It seems to me like you're just taking them for granted.

Besides, like I said - Baldur's Gate 2, working as it does with the dysfunctional mess that are the AD&D rules, gives me a lot more freedom than most modern fantasy RPGs. If I want a swordsman, I can choose from several classes, kits and options within them, and that's without getting into mods. Compare that to games like Dragon Age, or apparently, Divinity: Original Sin, where I get to choose if my heavily-armoured tank will use a two-handed weapon or a shield.

You know what's another good counter-example? Divinity: Original Sin! Since that game is what started this discussion I thought it was worth re-iterating that point. In D:OS a mage can pick locks and a warrior can cast healing spells--there's absolutely no restriction on what each class can do; in fact, the only thing the class selection actually does is determine starting skills and gear.

Can I play a lightly-armoured fighter with two swords?

[tonberrian]

You're painting things in incredibly broad strokes, here, and to say that D&D-style classes are the only logical progression is a huge overstatement. It seems to me like you're just taking them for granted.

No, I'm saying that, regardless of method of character advancement, you get something identifiable as a melee dude, a healer, a stealthy guy, an archer, or whatever.

And I'm still confused as to what you mean by D&D-esque class systems. Are you saying there's a class system that doesn't have these defects that you do like? What game? What does it do differently? (And no, Shadowrun Returns is not a class system. It is pretty much quintessentially class-less, with predefined character archetypes that look like classes. Similarly, Skyrim is classless, while Morrowind is the epitome of a highly customizeable class system (and also incredibly broken, but that's neither here nor there).)

Besides, like I said - Baldur's Gate 2, working as it does with the dysfunctional mess that are the AD&D rules, gives me a lot more freedom than most modern fantasy RPGs. If I want a swordsman, I can choose from several classes, kits and options within them, and that's without getting into mods. Compare that to games like Dragon Age, or apparently, Divinity: Original Sin, where I get to choose if my heavily-armoured tank will use a two-handed weapon or a shield.

I don't get this, seeing as from everything I've read in this thread it is the exact opposite.

Can I play a lightly-armoured fighter with two swords?

Aside from apparently lacking a two weapon fighting ability. Note: I have never played D:OS, though i do plan to get it.

[factotum]

Can I play a lightly-armoured fighter with two swords?

There's no dual-wielding in the game, so no. If not being able to dual wield is a game breaker for you then that's fine--it doesn't really have anything to do with the game's class system, though, because if there *was* a dual-wielding capability then any class would be able to do it, not just fighters or rogues or whatever.

[Knaight]

There's no dual-wielding in the game, so no. If not being able to dual wield is a game breaker for you then that's fine--it doesn't really have anything to do with the game's class system, though, because if there *was* a dual-wielding capability then any class would be able to do it, not just fighters or rogues or whatever.

The requirements were lightly armored with two swords. That's doable, the two swords just can't be in use at the same time.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The requirements were lightly armored with two swords. That's doable, the two swords just can't be in use at the same time.

So like Geralt then?

[Knaight]

So like Geralt then?

Like lots of people. Backup swords are often a decent idea. The point is, dual wielding isn't actually required by the specifications.

[Morty]

No, I'm saying that, regardless of method of character advancement, you get something identifiable as a melee dude, a healer, a stealthy guy, an archer, or whatever.

And I'm still confused as to what you mean by D&D-esque class systems. Are you saying there's a class system that doesn't have these defects that you do like? What game? What does it do differently? (And no, Shadowrun Returns is not a class system. It is pretty much quintessentially class-less, with predefined character archetypes that look like classes. Similarly, Skyrim is classless, while Morrowind is the epitome of a highly customizeable class system (and also incredibly broken, but that's neither here nor there).)

No class system, no. I prefer classless systems for a reason. A system that uses classes to good effect while avoiding the common pitfalls might be possible, but I haven't seen one in practice.

I don't get this, seeing as from everything I've read in this thread it is the exact opposite.

I've done some reading and that was the impression I got. "Rogue" skills seem to be ranged combat, traps, and the like. No attention paid to the aspects of melee combat not about brute force and heavy armour. It might be wrong, but I didn't feel like risking it.

There's no dual-wielding in the game, so no. If not being able to dual wield is a game breaker for you then that's fine--it doesn't really have anything to do with the game's class system, though, because if there *was* a dual-wielding capability then any class would be able to do it, not just fighters or rogues or whatever.

Like lots of people. Backup swords are often a decent idea. The point is, dual wielding isn't actually required by the specifications.

Joking as he might be, Knaight is actually right. Dual-wielding isn't a deal breaker. It's just an example I use to illustrate how stifling the warrior/rogue division is.

[Knaight]

I've done some reading and that was the impression I got. "Rogue" skills seem to be ranged combat, traps, and the like. No attention paid to the aspects of melee combat not about brute force and heavy armour. It might be wrong, but I didn't feel like risking it.

The skills are defined within the existing archetypes. It's just that the classes aren't restricted to the set of skills that they are archetypically associated with.

It's basically a classless system, where starting characters are defined by picking a template, which can then be extended however. The template is just called a class.

Joking as he might be, Knaight is actually right. Dual-wielding isn't a deal breaker. It's just an example I use to illustrate how stifling the warrior/rogue division is.

Mostly I was just being pedantic.

[IthilanorStPete]

Picked up two new games during the Steam sale - Victoria 2 and Rogue Legacy. Victoria 2 is, well, another Paradox game, with all the complexity and simulation that entails. I've been enjoying my first game as Brazil, roughly following this LP, and it's been going well - it's 1854, I've taken all my cores and conquered La Paz from Bolivia, and I'm just starting to really industrialize.

Rogue Legacy has also been fun. I'm pretty bad at it - action/platformers like this aren't usually my thing - but it's a neat premise. I'm very early on, still unlocking basic classes and working on the first few upgrades. I've started with vampirism due to getting a Blood Sword, hopefully I can get some runes so I can rely on vampirism for healing. I like all the random traits the heroes can have, especially the flavorful ones like The One, and how the effects show in every aspect of the game.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Victoria 2 is one of my favourite games. Once you think you have the hang of it, try the Pop Demand Mod, aka Pops of Darkness, or perhaps the standalone submod Concert of Nations. Runs slower, but is at once both more historically accurate at game start, and is more historically plausible including plausible alternate histories like the northern stated seceding from a southern dominated union, an accurate south American start (Rio grande do sul is in a rebellion against Brazil, and Peru-Bolivian confederation is struggling to hold together, Russia is fighting a rebellion in the Caucasus, etc. Also great wars are so much more satisfying.

The submod starts the game in 1821 instead of 1836, and features the war of Greek independence and the independence wars of most of the South American states. Very cool stuff. The first decade and a half is mostly event driven though.

[IthilanorStPete]

Victoria 2 is one of my favourite games. Once you think you have the hang of it, try the Pop Demand Mod, aka Pops of Darkness, or perhaps the standalone submod Concert of Nations. Runs slower, but is at once both more historically accurate at game start, and is more historically plausible including plausible alternate histories like the northern stated seceding from a southern dominated union, an accurate south American start (Rio grande do sul is in a rebellion against Brazil, and Peru-Bolivian confederation is struggling to hold together, Russia is fighting a rebellion in the Caucasus, etc. Also great wars are so much more satisfying.

The submod starts the game in 1821 instead of 1836, and features the war of Greek independence and the independence wars of most of the South American states. Very cool stuff. The first decade and a half is mostly event driven though.

I'll keep it in mind, but I think it's going to be a long time before I feel comfortable enough to explore mods. Vic2 seems more complex than CK2 or EU4, and it'll take a few games for me to explore various countries and starting situations. Any particular advice for a new player, either specific to Brazil or in general?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Ignore most windows. Capitalists are stupid. To get immigrants become a socialist democracy, but even then USA gets a bonus because historical growth rates.

[IthilanorStPete]

Ignore most windows. Capitalists are stupid. To get immigrants become a socialist democracy, but even then USA gets a bonus because historical growth rates.

Is there any way to go from a HM's Government to Democracy? Would I need to fold to rebels (presumably Jacobins), then reform?

EDIT: Oh, is there anything particular I should be doing diplomatically? I've been increasing relations with the UK (who've sphered me) and France, since they border me, boosted a few relations and made a couple of alliances in South America, but I've generally got a lot more diplomacy points than I know what to do with.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Diplomatic points aren't so much a "you should spend all you have" mechanic and more of a mechanic ensuring you can't send send diplomats to the whole world all at once. Raise relations with people who threaten you who you don't want war with and with those you want to get allies with. And just try to get to be a great power, so you can start playing with more diplomacy

[Duck999]

Are there any known bugs on the atari. I have one, but the colors are off. Especially in adventure. The dragons I can tell are the wrong color because they do not compare to things I have read. Also, upon getting to the easter egg, I do not find what should be there but instead find the following:
text?

Anyone know what this is?

[TaRix]

Are there any known bugs on the atari. I have one, but the colors are off. Especially in adventure. The dragons I can tell are the wrong color because they do not compare to things I have read. Also, upon getting to the easter egg, I do not find what should be there but instead find the following:
text?

Anyone know what this is?

From what I gathered, the Adventure! easter egg was just to let the creator sneak his name in without The Man axing it (pretty much nobody got credit for their work in those days).

More details can be found through his Wikipedia page (Warren Robinett)

[Duck999]

From what I gathered, the Adventure! easter egg was just to let the creator sneak his name in without The Man axing it (pretty much nobody got credit for their work in those days).

More details can be found through his Wikipedia page (Warren Robinett)

I know the entire description of the existence of the easter egg from the book Ready Player One (great book for gamers who read). He would have not gotten credit if not for it. However, I don't have the easter egg. Mine seems like an edited or bugged version instead of saying Created By... It says "text?"

[Gnoman]

Your cartridge is probably damaged or inflicted with data rot.

[Duck999]

Your cartridge is probably damaged or inflicted with data rot.

cartridge? I only have a joystick that plugs into my tv. It probably has some data rot though. Thanks.