Fantastical Thoughts On RPG Game Mechanics

Pages

AuthorTopic: Fantastical Thoughts On RPG Game Mechanics
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #25
What, you think it's not already being flamed? ;)

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #26
I would vote to keep it here as well. Although it is perhaps of general interest, the length and style of some of the posts makes me worried it may go the way of Synergy's last debate topic.

I would actually argue that hack-and-slash is not all filler. Recently I've had occasion (at work, no less) to play a number of RPGs and pseudo-RPGs made over the last 15 years for Nintendo's handheld systems -- the Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance. All of these games possess some kind of system that scales the potential field of gameplay to a vastly larger size.

The Pokemon and Dragon Warrior Monsters games allow you to build up not three or six PCs, but hundreds of them, if you want to. (Pokemon, I was very surprised to discover, also has a battle system with a superb ratio of depth to complexity.) Mega Man Battle Network has a CCG-like system whereby you can constantly improve your character one element at a time, for an exceedingly large number of elements. There are the actual CCG games like YuGiOh, which work the same way. And then there are the roguelike Mystery Dungeon titles that have been appearing the past few years, which feature infinite dungeon exploration. Other games, like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, incorporate a "mission" setup that allows new content to be speedily generated; either slipped into a template by the developers (FFTA has 300+ pregenerated missions), or on-the-fly much as a roguelike generates a dungeon level.

This scalability has made these games much more successful than traditional RPGs for the same systems. A lot of this has to do with the environmental demands of a handheld system -- which people often want to play for small stretches of time, but with which still like experiencing a sense of accomplishment -- and the demographics; Nintendo has the younger end of the market and these games are at least partially targetted at 10-year-olds. But this kind of scalability entails infinite hack-and-slash, and this is infinite hack-and-slash that is being enjoyed. It's not like MMORPGs where it's really the only option for implementation. People choose the hack-and-slash option.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something."
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #27
quote:
Originally written by Yama Toman?:

I would actually argue that hack-and-slash is not all filler. Recently I've had occasion (at work, no less) to play a number of RPGs and pseudo-RPGs made over the last 15 years for Nintendo's handheld systems -- the Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance.
I want your job. :(

But seriously, I've observed the same thing in regard to handheld games doing their damnedest to add replay value, and I agree with you that it's not a phenomenon confined to handhelds. In general, people like to be presented with a certain amount of variation on a central theme rather than a completely unfamiliar experience every time.

Likewise, my roguelike of choice is Angband, the hackiest and slashiest of them all (and given the nature of the average roguelike, that's saying something).

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 10374
Profile #28
Crap, posted this in Avernum instead of Geneforge board.

[ Tuesday, October 30, 2007 07:08: Message edited by: LakiRa@ ]

--------------------
If you listen to LakiRa@ all will go well!
Posts: 263 | Registered: Sunday, September 9 2007 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #29
I do find it interesting that Angband is so popular here. You, me, and Alorael, at any rate, compared to Aran's lonely cries of ADOM.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something."
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #30
Hack and slash isn't inherently bad, although it is inherently unrealistic. On the other hand, I think Diabo-style hacking really is mindless, and Angband is the same thing but turn-based. Requiring a little bit of thought makes the whole thiing much better.

It's probably still supposed to be under wraps, but I think Avernum has been moving in the right direction. A4 definitely gives tactical challenges, and A5 gives even more. Wiping the floor with dozens of goblins is necessary as part of establishing your party as stupendous heroes who can, well, wipe the floor with goblins, but carefully managing your resources and your actions in hard combat makes hacking better.

—Alorael, who still thinks thinking heroism is better for a game than thinking averageness. You need tactics if your characters are ordinary, frail mortals, but the effect is less fun and more frustrating except for the niche market that enjoys that kind of frustration.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 122
Profile #31
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Xplo — there's a reason I haven't been addressing your commentary.
And, if you had actually said what it was, we might have made some kind of progress here. Instead, you spent the rest of your post texturbating. As a result, we can only guess why you've ignored my objections and requests for clarification.. and they still remain unanswered.

If this is your usual mode of communication with anyone who contradicts you, it's no wonder why your other debate threads (as someone called them) devolve into flaming.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #32
This is my usual mode of communication with people who insult me right out the gate over something oddly trivial. Most people I talk with don't agree with me on any number of things. I'm quite used to and comfortable with that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #33
quote:
Originally written by Yama Toman?:

I do find it interesting that Angband is so popular here. You, me, and Alorael, at any rate, compared to Aran's lonely cries of ADOM.
Djur's much more of a Nethack fan, but he hasn't been here in ages. Alec is into Angband, though, and thinks that Nethack is a game made by and for autistics.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 8558
Profile #34
I dont see the need for it to be so realistic, this is a RPG, where you use magic, spells, summons and fight mistical monsters, it is not real from the start. I dont see the need for it to be more realistic.

I think its fine that you have to save before going to major fights so if use the wrong strategy and die you can go back and try something different.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Monday, April 23 2007 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #35
Heh. I understand too well what the rather narrow concept of the RPG is. My thoughts are all about exploring other possible ways an RPG could be constructed and enjoyed. But you are right. There is no "need" for any RPG to be any certain way, more realistic, less realistic, or to exist at all for that matter. Games are pure indulgence. And so, for me, is this thread.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #36
I've always hated Nethack. I feel like Aran also plays that, though...

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something."
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
Profile Homepage #37
quote:
Originally written by Yama Toman?:

I do find it interesting that Angband is so popular here. You, me, and Alorael, at any rate, compared to Aran's lonely cries of ADOM.
At least people have heard of ADOM. When I talk about Dungeon Crawl, people just go "huh?".

--------------------
Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram.

New Mac BoE
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 8036
Profile #38
Ok... Screw reading though all of that... Ill just add my 2 cents.

Ok, I find too many games use a Hit point system.
I have a Better Idea to add more of a real life feel: The System of Shock points.

If you have played P&PRPG games you would know what this system is, but I will tell you all any way:

The System works with the character having a paper Doll representing his physical body. Each arm and leg has maybe six shock boxes. His body has eight, and his head have four.

When you are attacking some one with this system, you get to first attack where you suspect may be the easiest point to attack or you use the best attack for the job.
If he is using a shield in one hand it may make it difficult to attack particular limbs. The % is worked out with the Weapon sills, melee skills/Gunnying skill etc, and Prime Request stat of Strength, Agility etc.

Once you lay an attack on, and you hit, you hit that limb, the victims armor reduces some of the damage by absorbing its Shock Damage.

Damage: There are two kinds of damage; Shock and Killing.
Shock is like a superficial hit that fades off after a turn, killing is like a big critical injury that would require medical attention.

When all the Shock Boxes on a damaged limb are filled with shock, any further damage becomes killing damage, and killing damage doubles. Killing is always added first.

Armor: Shock damage is applied to the Clothing Durability and dose not apply to the player. All Killing damage is converted to Shock that can not be removed.

Ill let you guys play with this...

--------------------
Put your heart into all you do, even when it seems your are diving head first to your demise, for your heart knows the right path to a true victory!
Posts: 67 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #39
The result is a more complicated abstraction that still doesn't really model getting stabbed in the arm very well.

—Alorael, who still believes firmly that simplicity is a virtue in games. Lots of choices are good, but a steep learning curve is not.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 549
Profile #40
Avernum is more of a "traditional" fantasy RPG. There are tactical RPG's out there, like Fallout, Jagged Alliance, and Silent Storm. However, that type of gameplay doesn't really fit into the high powered worlds like Avernum. The characters in Avernum are not limited like real people. At high levels, your characters basically become demi-gods. A high leveled mage can incinerate an entire army of average soldiers. A high leveled warrior can take hits from a massive dragon and still remain standing.

The whole hit point system is supposed to represent how incredibly powerful your characters are. Not only can they shrug off blows that would pulp an average person, their fighting ability doesn't diminish even when they are nearing death.

If Avernum was made more "realistic" then there would be no way for you to fight the fantastical enemies that are common in Avernum. How would you take on a dozen ogres, each one with the strength to crush a man's head with one blow? How would you deal with magic, having no way for your character to avoid being covered by acid and horribly maimed for life?
Posts: 227 | Registered: Thursday, January 24 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #41
Oh come now, if you think there's "no way" then it's just for a lack of imagination. It's not as simple or universal in application. It would be quite a challenge to design well. Let me take a random crack at some of your situations here:

• Fighting ogres: running into a pack of ogres would be likely fatal normally, unless you had access to some kind of dazing/freezing magic. You do have skills that tend to keep you from wandering into packs of enemies though, so you are usually making the choice to do so. For larger packs of formidable foes, you might have to use stealth to lure individuals out or to make assassinations (assuming you had someone skilled enough. The game could tell you your odds of success in some fashion.) I like the idea of the PC talking to the group: "I really think I can do this!" "I don't think I can handle this yet." "I think I might be able to do this." Etc. I like the human element better than looking at some mathematical prediction for an outcome.

If you failed an assassination, you could be 1) killed, 2) injured and require healing/resting, 3) discovered and, if you are quick enough relative to the ogres, you might escape unharmed, 4) you have led angry ogres back to the rest of your party and you probably had better run. Other skills could figure in to your ability to confuse, slow, evade, and hide from such critters.

Or you could just hammer it out if you are playing the typical rpg with a bunch of hit points on each side with predictable and boring results.

• Dealing with magic. Personally, I'd craft a world in which magic is much rarer, harder to learn, only usable more occasionally as it depletes the caster. Magic would be more exciting if it were more dangerous and rare when you encounter or use it, but at a higher price all around.

Evading magic attacks or having enough armor to protect you against things would be figured into how likely you are to survive magic. Acid would destroy your armor...at the least, on the first hit, or some percentage of it. More than 2-3 hits and you have no armor left. That's expensive. You will be motivated to avoid acid like the plague, which you should. Getting hit with acid once your armor is toast is, for all practical purposes, fatal, beyond minor dosage. I don't like acid attack as magic though. I'd make it an expensive and rare lobbed potion or a fired projectile. Acid is not easy to come by in the ancient world.

Some elemental magic as offenses seems more organic to a world where magic might actually exist. You summon fire or ice or water or earth from the environment around you, or perhaps an elemental to fight for you for a time, but only as long as your essence can support it. Magic fatigue would mean that after it drains out, your elemental crumples. Using magic should be very draining though. Very powerful, but shorter-lived.

In order to face fantastical enemies of great ability or strength, you'd better have a strategy on hand to outwit its advantages...either with magic to hamper it, stealth, assassination, poisoning to weaken it, sending some purchased or acquired critters (say trained wolves) in first to soften it up, luring it into a trap where you can use the terrain to your advantage. A thief/rogue PC should be able to set traps to lure foes into. If you have a strong rogue, you could do some real damage, or fatal damage to something with nothing else, potentially. But everything has a cost of some kind, monetary or energetic, and you have limited resources, so choose carefully.

A game would give you clues and cues about how you might take on enemies of certain kinds. Just running in and fighting whatever you find anywhere you go without being versed in what you are facing would mean almost certain doom.

This all seems more realistic, varied, and quite doable, if you are willing to create a game with these kinds of dynamics built in.

-S-

P.S. I like the idea of having/recruiting numerous PCs to your party. You'd only take the ones out relevant to your goal or mission at the time though. You couldn't afford to wander around with all ten of them all the time, and some would be too vulnerable to the situation at hand. How much fun would it be to even hire that mage in the city to go on a mission with you, so you can beat a nasty boss and get its awesome treasure or weapon earlier than you normally would. It's gonna cost you though, but it might be worth it.

Stash your rogue at the inn when you are going on a whack-fest. Bring your rogue and elf or whatever is sneaky, fast, and quiet, to scout out your enemies' camp. Send a spy into a potentially unfriendly town. You are limited only by your reputation and means to hire/induct people to your cause.

[ Thursday, November 01, 2007 17:51: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator NR Items The Lonely Celt
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #42
What you actually want is a pencil and paper tabletop roleplaying game. Implementing those on a computer with no human on the other end is rather hard without robust AI.

—Alorael, who thinks your two requests are worth separating. Firstly, you want many choices of how to handle challenges. Charge in with drawn swords, sneak and stab, negotiate, lure, or whatever. Secondly, you want characters to be fragile and magic to be rare and difficult to use. The first is laudable but difficult to implement. The second is a game style decision, and it's one that is far from incontroversial.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #43
The multiple PC thing might be doable. I'd imagine a game where the real protagonist is a group or cause. Players control one or a few of the group's members at a time, each doing their part in some long campaign. If the entire game were still about the standard length, then this would mean a kind of braid of shorter stories, instead of one long saga, as far as individual characters were concerned.

This would pose some challenges. With each character having less screen time in which to gain levels, gaining levels would become a much less significant feature of the game. That might be fine, though. Perhaps more importantly, there would be less time for each individual character to develop personality.

But there would be some interesting features added by running a stable of PCs, as opposed to the usual singleton or fixed party.
Some of them, or even many of them, might be bound to die along the way. So the game could be made quite a bit more 'realistic' in this sense.

Really interesting: there could be possibilities for some of the characters to betray the group they initially represent, and join or start another one. Unless some very clever plotting were managed — which might be possible — then some combats between player characters — in a one-player RPG! — could occur. To make this work would need either an engine that could handle playing-both-sides fights, or an AI so good that it could credibly manage a character that would be a PC in other stages of the game.

Or else, I suppose, the game could simply convert PCs into NPCs if they went off the rails. Maybe getting a good ending would require that the player exercise leadership, in ensuring that their stable of PCs actually stayed committed to the cause and did not all turn into NPCs.

Well, there are some interesting options here.

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 8036
Profile #44
that reminds me of an RPG on computer I wanted to create, but don't have the skills to make. :(

At the moment I'm getting sick of allot of RPG games out on the market.
They are Cliché in story, enemies are ether too hard or too easy and mathematically impossible to beat, and the Path of the story's are too linear for my tastes. If I dont like the story, I cant play the game well.

What made me come to GF4 was that these flaws in many of games, are just about non existent.

How ever, one thing I do like in most of the P&PRPGs is that the GM can emphasize on the frailness of a human. I think there should be permeant consequences for going down to %15 health. Things like a Limp, loss of eye, or limb.

I remember in Dominions 3 an item that if equipped forced you to cut out the Character using its eye out. If I personally wrote the game I would add a chance of going insane because of the Injury, etc. (yes, you can tell my Favorite spell was mass MADNESS in GF4)

--------------------
Put your heart into all you do, even when it seems your are diving head first to your demise, for your heart knows the right path to a true victory!
Posts: 67 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 549
Profile #45
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Oh come now, if you think there's "no way" then it's just for a lack of imagination. It's not as simple or universal in application. It would be quite a challenge to design well. Let me take a random crack at some of your situations here:

• Fighting ogres: running into a pack of ogres would be likely fatal normally, unless you had access to some kind of dazing/freezing magic. You do have skills that tend to keep you from wandering into packs of enemies though, so you are usually making the choice to do so. For larger packs of formidable foes, you might have to use stealth to lure individuals out or to make assassinations (assuming you had someone skilled enough. The game could tell you your odds of success in some fashion.) I like the idea of the PC talking to the group: "I really think I can do this!" "I don't think I can handle this yet." "I think I might be able to do this." Etc. I like the human element better than looking at some mathematical prediction for an outcome.

If you failed an assassination, you could be 1) killed, 2) injured and require healing/resting, 3) discovered and, if you are quick enough relative to the ogres, you might escape unharmed, 4) you have led angry ogres back to the rest of your party and you probably had better run. Other skills could figure in to your ability to confuse, slow, evade, and hide from such critters.

Or you could just hammer it out if you are playing the typical rpg with a bunch of hit points on each side with predictable and boring results.

• Dealing with magic. Personally, I'd craft a world in which magic is much rarer, harder to learn, only usable more occasionally as it depletes the caster. Magic would be more exciting if it were more dangerous and rare when you encounter or use it, but at a higher price all around.

Evading magic attacks or having enough armor to protect you against things would be figured into how likely you are to survive magic. Acid would destroy your armor...at the least, on the first hit, or some percentage of it. More than 2-3 hits and you have no armor left. That's expensive. You will be motivated to avoid acid like the plague, which you should. Getting hit with acid once your armor is toast is, for all practical purposes, fatal, beyond minor dosage. I don't like acid attack as magic though. I'd make it an expensive and rare lobbed potion or a fired projectile. Acid is not easy to come by in the ancient world.

Some elemental magic as offenses seems more organic to a world where magic might actually exist. You summon fire or ice or water or earth from the environment around you, or perhaps an elemental to fight for you for a time, but only as long as your essence can support it. Magic fatigue would mean that after it drains out, your elemental crumples. Using magic should be very draining though. Very powerful, but shorter-lived.

In order to face fantastical enemies of great ability or strength, you'd better have a strategy on hand to outwit its advantages...either with magic to hamper it, stealth, assassination, poisoning to weaken it, sending some purchased or acquired critters (say trained wolves) in first to soften it up, luring it into a trap where you can use the terrain to your advantage. A thief/rogue PC should be able to set traps to lure foes into. If you have a strong rogue, you could do some real damage, or fatal damage to something with nothing else, potentially. But everything has a cost of some kind, monetary or energetic, and you have limited resources, so choose carefully.

A game would give you clues and cues about how you might take on enemies of certain kinds. Just running in and fighting whatever you find anywhere you go without being versed in what you are facing would mean almost certain doom.

This all seems more realistic, varied, and quite doable, if you are willing to create a game with these kinds of dynamics built in. It would be a slower and more methodical, thinking, and experimenting game. But give me lots and lots of highly varied choices how to go about achieving my ends, often with multiple possible ways to get there.

-S-

P.S. I like the idea of having/recruiting numerous PCs to your party. You'd only take the ones out relevant to your goal or mission at the time though. You couldn't afford to wander around with all ten of them all the time, and some would be too vulnerable to the situation at hand. How much fun would it be to even hire that mage in the city to go on a mission with you, so you can beat a nasty boss and get its awesome treasure or weapon earlier than you normally would. It's gonna cost you though, but it might be worth it.

Stash your rogue at the inn when you are going on a whack-fest. Bring your rogue and elf or whatever is sneaky, fast, and quiet, to scout out your enemies' camp. Send a spy into a potentially unfriendly town. You are limited only by your reputation and means to hire/induct people to your cause.

We're dealing with a game series that has an established history. Magic is very common. Even in Avernum where magic is supposed to be hard to come by, there are mages and clerics in pretty much every settlement. A lot of the flora in Avernum was created by magic. Even primitive tribes of goblins have access to magic. Avernum is a high magic world and there's just no way to get around that.

It's not impossible to make the game more "realistic" but it would no longer be an epic adventure. The game would be limited to weak characters dealing with small numbers of enemies in more neutral territory. While past Avernum games involved getting into extremely hostile territory and fighting large battles against very powerful enemies. Trickery and strategy can only get you so far. Getting a small force of adventurers into a heavily guarded Empire fortress is already hard enough. You're already sneaking room to room to slowly kill off enemy troops. Just how much strategy can a group of 4 adventurers use against armies of elite troops, lairs full of fire breathing lizards, and flying monsters with thousands of eyes capable of leveling cities?
Posts: 227 | Registered: Thursday, January 24 2002 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #46
I know Synergy mentioned Spiderweb games in his first post, but he knows as well as you and I do that this discussion isn't really about future Spiderweb games. You're right: Avernum is what it is, and it will change and grow but it won't change this much.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Making poorly-sourced claims is not the same as determining something."
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7252
Profile #47
I just took a skim..so all in all..the way to go is realism..but realism don't go with magic..

--------------------
Humans fight to enter insanity.
You ain't evil until you hear this!
Posts: 732 | Registered: Saturday, June 24 2006 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 8558
Profile #48
avernum is a fantasy game, and its full of magic.

I dont see the need to make it more realistic. If you have slithszeraki, talking dragons, giant mutant cockroach, why cant you have healing magic, and towns that restores hp.

I don't say that sinergy idea is bad but it just does not fit into avernum/ exile.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Monday, April 23 2007 07:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #49
quote:
Alorael, who thinks your two requests are worth separating. Firstly, you want many choices of how to handle challenges. Charge in with drawn swords, sneak and stab, negotiate, lure, or whatever. Secondly, you want characters to be fragile and magic to be rare and difficult to use. The first is laudable but difficult to implement. The second is a game style decision, and it's one that is far from uncontroversial.
Seconded. The first point stems from the tabletop RPG verses CRPG disparity. You just can't do everything in a CRPG; not only are there engine limitations, but the designers themselves aren't able to write up results for every single situation. On the other hand, a GM is not only able to respond to every situation, but is also able to gauge what the players are interested in and direct the gameflow in the right direction.

As for the second game: the closest game I've played like that is A Game of Thrones, a d20 game based off of George R. R. Martin's books. Among other things, it has (warning, d20 specific rules follow):

* Almost no magic (Martin's books are low magic, and the RPG has magic used at GM's discretion).

* The above implies no healing. PCs can get the Heal skill (which is expensive for most classes), that allows a PC to slow blood loss on the battlefield, and stop it out of it. HP gain requires bed rest.

* All PCs have a Shock value, initially based of their Constitution. If PCs are dealt more damage than their Shock value, they have to make a Fortitude save based on the damage dealt or be stunned. Additionally, they get blood loss damage every round equal to the amount that the damage exceeds the Shock value.

* Called shot rules, most of which traded accuracy for extra damage, crippling effects, or automatic criticals. Also, there were sniping rules; get a circumstance bonus to your shot if you wait a round and aim.

The verdict: way too much accounting for a tabletop RPG. Combat was slowed to a crawl, and player death was too high a price to pay given the time it took to roll up a new character in AGoF's more complicated system. AGoF also had a greater focus on skills than D&D, but this also lead to the lowest common denominator problem - it doesn't matter how sneaky your Hunter and Knave are, the Knight and Man-At-Arms are still clanking around enough to spoil the needed ambush on those wildlings. Sure, you can split up the party, but even without the higher risk of fatality, party splitting is one of the greatest cause of player boredom.

Student of Trinity: For what's it's worth, games like Neverwinter Nights 2 has a roster of PCs, though I don't think it's quite like what you have in mind. You have to keep 'your' PC in the party, and changing party members becomes too much trouble when you're far away from your base of operations. Besides, I prefer to use the PCs I acquired at lower levels over the ones I acquired later; the party members complement each other better if your able to level them up yourself than if you have a higher level PC dropped in.

--------------------
Who gave you the nerve to get killed here?
- Hong Kong subtitle
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00

Pages