Dungeons and Dragons is the best role playing system for crpg's

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jamski
Erm... there is no "D&D" setting.

D&D is just the rules, and there are a few official settings (Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Dragonlance, Mystara, Ravenloft, Greyhawk etc etc etc)

Fair enough. KotOR is not a D&D style setting then.

I appreciate it's exactly the same engine as NWN (with a few simplifications actually) but to me the setting is important, and I found the Star Wars setting much more immersive.

Still, maybe the setting question needs another thread.

[Felch]

Originally posted by nostromo
But D&D itself isn't generic: its build around an official setting. It used to be the Forgotten Realms, but they recently replaced it by a nearly identical setting. Don't remember the name.

I think it's called Eberra (Might have a wrong letter or two in there). And considering that it keeps the same races and classes, I think it's supposed to be pretty different from FR.

[Nostromo]

How so? Whether a game system is easier to learn depends on the game mechanics, not the setting.

Some settings are harder to get into than others. For example, a game based on Transhuman space (an intricate, hard sci fi setting based on the Ghost in the shell manga), would be hard to get into. For the same reason, a lot of people complained that SMAC was harder to get into than Civ. Its not obvious, at first glance, what NANOHOSPITAL does.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo


Some settings are harder to get into than others. For example, a game based on Transhuman space (an intricate, hard sci fi setting based on the Ghost in the shell manga), would be hard to get into. For the same reason, a lot of people complained that SMAC was harder to get into than Civ. Its not obvious, at first glance, what NANOHOSPITAL does.

precisely. A historical setting has historical buildings, units, etc. Now conceivably someone could make a game with historical names, but the units dont act at like they did historically - in which case the historical stuff isnt much use. But if there is even a vague match to history (im thinking Civ or AOE here, not grognard war games) then the historical name is a useful clue, and saves a lot of checking the manual, thinking about strategies, etc. I KNOW that I will need cats to attack a walled fortress, and that pikemen will be useful against cavalry, without having played the game, investigated its mechanics, or read a strat guide.

[Nostromo]

There are more of them because the AD&D rules are sterile and mechanical, thus easier to implement in a game.

Compared the rules of AD&D to, say, Ars Magica.

Good point. Yes, some rpgs are easier to implement than others. And, irc, one of the design goals behind D&D 3th edition was to make it even easier to implement in computer games. Ars Magica is a good example of a rpg that couldn't be implemented in a computer game.
But D&D is not the only implementable rpg, nor is it the best one. GURPS, Call of Cthulhu and Vampire: the masquerade, they all can be implemented fairly well in a crpg.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


precisely. A historical setting has historical buildings, units, etc. Now conceivably someone could make a game with historical names, but the units dont act at like they did historically - in which case the historical stuff isnt much use. But if there is even a vague match to history (im thinking Civ or AOE here, not grognard war games) then the historical name is a useful clue, and saves a lot of checking the manual, thinking about strategies, etc. I KNOW that I will need cats to attack a walled fortress, and that pikemen will be useful against cavalry, without having played the game, investigated its mechanics, or read a strat guide.

Indeed!

Though in doing so the can of worms is opened whereby someone will inevitably opine that it just isn't realistic that x cavalrymen have a y% chance of victory even though z didn't happen.

At which point some opinionated gamer ( ) will have to point out, at length, just how silly an argument that is.

[DarkCloud]

Felch, for the clarification and nostromo for the refutation- it's Eberron and it hasn't replaced the Forgotten Realms- it coeexists with the FR.

Eberron is the 3rd ed. equivalent of FR for the 2nd and Greyhawk of the 1st- it's the host setting.

Eberron symoblizes the direction that Wizards intends to take with its new products. Strange prestige classes like the GreenStarAdept and classes like the Artificer are native to Eberron, giving it a decidedly 'pulp' flavour... and add to that action points and you have a 'cinematic wonderland' as opposed to:

Forgotten Realms- High Fantasy of Tolkien

Greyhawk: Knights, Castles, ye olde fantasy. A bit darker than Eberron and MUCH darker than the FR.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by nostromo
Some settings are harder to get into than others. For example, a game based on Transhuman space (an intricate, hard sci fi setting based on the Ghost in the shell manga), would be hard to get into. For the same reason, a lot of people complained that SMAC was harder to get into than Civ. Its not obvious, at first glance, what NANOHOSPITAL does.

I reckon Alpha Centauri is sort of a bad example, because it's a game with rules closely coupled with the game setting, not a game system that can be adopted readily to various settings. Besides, it's not a RPG.

I think a good CRPG should hide all the rules and let the players concentrate on playing the game, instead of trying to figure out whether spell A is better than spell B, or weapon X is better than weapon Y.

[Dis]

that's half the fun

actually just kidding. I wouldn't mind if certain aspects of the game were hidden. It would encourage experimentation.

[Apocalypse]

I think playing a Fallout type game in SMAC would be fun...

[Nostromo]

I reckon Alpha Centauri is sort of a bad example, because it's a game with rules closely coupled with the game setting, not a game system that can be adopted readily to various settings. Besides, it's not a RPG.

But the point remains: with some settings, you can jump right in the action; with others, you can't, since they're harder to get into. SMAC was harder to get into than Civ 2, in part because of the unfamiliar setting. And yet the two were basically the same game. Btw, there's a SMAC module for GURPS The Transhuman Space modules for GURPS are another good example. They're great and all, but players can't jump right in the action, since the setting is so intricate an unfamiliar. They have to immerse themselves in the gameworld beforehand, otherwise they don't understand what's happening.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by nostromo
They have to immerse themselves in the gameworld beforehand, otherwise they don't understand what's happening.

Hmm.... I don't know, I think that's half of the fun.

Then again the game mechanism of Alpha Centauri is much more advanced and subtle than Civ 2. Like social engineering and unit workshop.

[Asher]

http://www.wimp.com/nut/

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
that's half the fun

actually just kidding. I wouldn't mind if certain aspects of the game were hidden. It would encourage experimentation.

All right, you

What I was actually trying to say is players should avoid trying to analyse the different variables of an RPG overly much to extract as much tactical advantage out of it as possible.

Using a better weapon is a good idea Trying to finding out under what conditions a broadsword is better than a long sword is over analysis.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I think a good CRPG should hide all the rules and let the players concentrate on playing the game, instead of trying to figure out whether spell A is better than spell B, or weapon X is better than weapon Y.

I'd hate that. Guess I'm a bad roleplayer.