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

[duke o' york]

Because the vast majority of games designers don't have the time/skills to create entirely new RP systems.

[Dis]

and as we were discussing in this thread. D n D is most familiar to people.

Although that does not mean it will sell as well. Games such as Diablo 2 are not D n D but have sold well. Although that's not a real RPG, so maybe that doesn't count.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


I *really* hope you are playing devil's advocate there. Otherwise I'm going to have to smack you around the head with a large stick.

Some games dont teach anything. Thats KEWL. Some games teach you how to fly a cessna to the point where you almost really could (MS flight sim x). Some games teach you that having regiments support each other and having a well anchored flank was the essence of civil war combat (Sid Meiers Gettysburg). Some games teach you that logistics is essential to win wars (AH's Afrika Korps, etc). Some games teach you the actualy events of a period in history (EU2, etc)

Civ2, though great as an abstract game, taught you something NO OTHER GAME taught you. Its something you COULD learn from books, though many civ players probably never read those books. And you may not believe it in a book, when you havent played it out yourself. Its the lesson of Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel. Its that WHICH civs thrive, and what their character evolves into, is largely determined by their geography, and NOT AT ALL by any essential racial charecteristics. Geography is destiny. No other game can teach it, cause you can ONLY teach it if you start at the beginning of civilization, and you run up to modern times. RTS like Empire Earth and RON dont cause they are, well, RTS where civ specific attributes fit their history lite approach. Only Civ teaches this.

The concession to civ specific traits where it didnt fit (SMAC is TOTALLY different) is, well, a concession to CASUAL GAMING - IE gaming that doesnt take the core issues of the game seriously.

[DrSpike]

/me gets out big stick.

Yes you're right - it's a great book that I used to make my students read. And wrong, of course. The introduction of civ traits adds flavour, variety and strategic depth to the game. Sure traits develop over time, but that isn't the point here. It's a game, with many abstractions. As pointed out earlier, why care about realism on this point when the civs that are in the game were not all civs or potential civs in 4000BC anyway? Traits that fit standard ideas of the civs make sense from a practical viewpoint, and even teach something about actual traits that the civ may have developed given their actual geographical surroundings.

It's a classic example of a context where otherwise correct historical arguments are just dumb. Strategic depth is the appropriate goal. Ergo, traits good, pedantic historians bad.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
Why do CRPGs need to use rules designed for pen-and-paper RPGs anyway ?

Because a D&D game will ALWAYS sell well and have big hype.

Silly not to, really.

[Nostromo]

Because a D&D game will ALWAYS sell well and have big hype.

Yes, if you have D&D on the box, it probably helps. In the West, at least. I'm pretty sure japanese gamers don't give an honorable rat's ass about D&D. That said, D&D games don't always sell: afaik, Temple of elemental evil and Planescape: torment didn't sell that well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
Why do CRPGs need to use rules designed for pen-and-paper RPGs anyway ?

I don't undestand that, either. A system handled by a computer can be more complicatednuanced than one handled by a human. You can use a lot of nice formulae and fractions and so forth.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jamski
Because a D&D game will ALWAYS sell well and have big hype.

Silly not to, really.

That's silly, though. Just because it's based on AD&D doesn't mean it's automagically good, let alone great.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Because chainmail is full of holes that an arrow can go through, whereas plate metal has to be punched through.

ACK!

[I was just trying(unsuccesfully) to bait Dr.Spike ]

well.......i've shot arrows into chainmail and plate armour(look....ok i've done some weird stuff in my time).

Chainmail was most often used over another softer type of armour/padding. As it was flexible it would move against the skin in a very abbrasive way, unlike the majority of a suit of plate armour; where you would get the most discomfort(and padding) at the joins.

Plate Armour is also much heavier than Chainmail, so you would try to keep the weight to a minimum - so not as much extra under armour.

Anyway in the tests i've done, using a 60lb bow - Chainmail did provide more protection to the 'meat'(some pork) underneath, with the peircing action of the arrow - the mail would give a little, bend inwards but keep most of the arrow out of the meat.

With plate, as long as you have a heavy enough poundage(and 60lbs was enough) - the arrow simply punches through and goes into the meat, rather than just nicking the surface.

With a sword i found that Plate is much the better armour with a hacking motion, it's pretty much impenetrable. With Chain you may not cut through many of the metal links, but underneath the meat received more damage.

So in those tests - chainmail is better at protecting from peircing blows, Plate armour better at hacking blows.

he he - i was like that 'spoof' dnd video clip that was doing the rounds - ah the weirdness of youth

[duke o' york]

* duke really hopes that CoT hadn't already done this in the past, and in fact only did this experiment in order to win this argument.

[child of Thor]

better in the past i say my bow and sword are being looked after by an old school friend who teaches Kung-fu. I figured he'd have more use for them than i do while in London...but you never know.....

But why didnt the DnD rule makers try this kinda stuff to test it out? It made me feel my whole childhood had been a waste of time....

[Boris Godunov]

I liked Fable's core system better than the D&D model, honestly. It just needs to be fleshed out a bit more to add more variety of characters.

The D&D model does generally work very well, though. KOTOR 1 & 2 are superb, and the funny thing is that the pen and paper version of those rules are awful.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Civ2, though great as an abstract game, taught you something NO OTHER GAME taught you. Its something you COULD learn from books, though many civ players probably never read those books. And you may not believe it in a book, when you havent played it out yourself. Its the lesson of Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel. Its that WHICH civs thrive, and what their character evolves into, is largely determined by their geography, and NOT AT ALL by any essential racial charecteristics. Geography is destiny.

But Civ2 did have racial characteristics, albeit on a lesser level. Look in the rules.txt file, and you will see settings for the AI for the civs such as "aggressive," "militaristic," "civilized," etc.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Jam

Because a D&D game will ALWAYS sell well and have big hype.

Silly not to, really.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's silly, though. Just because it's based on AD&D doesn't mean it's automagically good, let alone great.

Um, don't think he said that.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by child of Thor


I was just trying(unsuccesfully) to bait Dr.Spike

Pwned!