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

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by child of Thor

In DnD i never understood why Plate was a better armour class than Chainmail for stopping arrows?

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

ACK!

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

In the Aurora engine with multiclassing, prestige classes, and cross class skills if you so desire you have quite a wide spectrum of characters that can be created.

[duke o' york]

One of my friends was complaining about his Xbox KotoR because he had created a specialist character, and backed the character up with specialised henchmen, so that they did the jobs really well as a team. He then found he couldn't finish the game, because all of his henchmen disappeared, and he was so specialised that he couldn't do the final battle without them. There is always a good point to having to master several skills yourself.

[Nostromo]

Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

True. However, most people who like D&D don't really care about creating a broad spectrum of characters. They just want to play the archetypes found in heroic fantasy: fighter, wizard, cleric, thief... Like you pointed out, classless systems are much more flexible. In GURPS, for example, you can play a God emperor if you want, but it will cost ya!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

I like variety, but I also like the classes to be different. I don't like all classes looking similar. As I said before. I don't want druids wearing plate mail and swinging a bastard sword. I want classes to be unique. I want them to be able to do things other classes can't do.

[Nostromo]

I want them to be able to do things other classes can't do.

And it adds replayability

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Well given that any answer other than 'good' is indefensible I'd hope that's the way you answered.

Nope. civ specific attributes in a game beginning in 4000 BC?!?!? the english should be commercial and naval, even if they start in the middle of a huge continent? Breaks the whole lesson of Civ, which is that civilizations histories are NOT predetermined, but dependent on a mix of geographical determinism, choice, and accident.

[Dis]

Originally posted by nostromo


And it adds replayability

exactly. I can get more replayability out of a game such as Neverwinter Nights compared to Morrowind. And don't get me started on Dungeon Seige. I couldn't even play that game for more than 3 hours before I became bored of it.

[Dis]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. civ specific attributes in a game beginning in 4000 BC?!?!? the english should be commercial and naval, even if they start in the middle of a huge continent? Breaks the whole lesson of Civ, which is that civilizations histories are NOT predetermined, but dependent on a mix of geographical determinism, choice, and accident.

they put these in because people requested them. People wanted them to be more unique than in civ2. And more like smac.

It's not like the English civilization existed in 4000 BC anyways. Same with the americans.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. civ specific attributes in a game beginning in 4000 BC?!?!? the english should be commercial and naval, even if they start in the middle of a huge continent? Breaks the whole lesson of Civ, which is that civilizations histories are NOT predetermined, but dependent on a mix of geographical determinism, choice, and accident.

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.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by DrSpike


I actually like history, and I also think games like Civ are a great way to teach some broad historical facts to children (and the more ignorant adults ).

But when someone responds to a well argued point on balance from someone who understands the game that they are wrong because it just isn't realistic I want to beat them over the head with a very large stick. Repeatedly.

I can appreciate your position but I believe that if a game has to balance itself by ignoring reality in some obvious way, the designers were lazy people (or forced to be sloppy through time pressure.)

I may be getting my games mixed up, but I think it was Empire Earth that pulled a very simple paper-scissors-stone mechanism with swordsmen, spearmen and archers in the ancient era and similar stunts through its other eras. Contrast that to the Total War series. EE has created balance in a very sloppy way by ignoring reality. TW has worked hard to try and achieve a believable balance that actually teaches the players something while they play. TW still gets tweaked by the grognards to be even more accurate but the fundamentals are right. It doesn't pretend archers can win a melee with an infantry unit just because they are armed with the wrong type of pointy object.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Grumbold


I can appreciate your position but I believe that if a game has to balance itself by ignoring reality in some obvious way, the designers were lazy people (or forced to be sloppy through time pressure.)

I may be getting my games mixed up, but I think it was Empire Earth that pulled a very simple paper-scissors-stone mechanism with swordsmen, spearmen and archers in the ancient era and similar stunts through its other eras. Contrast that to the Total War series. EE has created balance in a very sloppy way by ignoring reality. TW has worked hard to try and achieve a believable balance that actually teaches the players something while they play. TW still gets tweaked by the grognards to be even more accurate but the fundamentals are right. It doesn't pretend archers can win a melee with an infantry unit just because they are armed with the wrong type of pointy object.

The first point isn't true though, not for Civ anyway. Given the major abstractions that need to take place for the game to even work it just is not true that if what remains is modelled 'realistically' that balance will follow. Your conclusion only holds if everything is modelled, and indeed that reality is 'balanced'; both are questionable, and the first demonstrably so.

As for the second point I agree. By focusing on a much smaller goal (ie the combat side of the game) rather than the span of all history the total war games have managed a far greater degree of accuracy alongside great gameplay. I am all for that, and I appreciate that for some the historical side of the game is the draw.

However, the grand scope of Civ requires more abstractions and some aspects that do not follow reality exactly, if the gameplay is to be as desired.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DrSpike
In the Aurora engine with multiclassing, prestige classes, and cross class skills if you so desire you have quite a wide spectrum of characters that can be created.

That's exactly my point. You need to add more classes. Multiclassing and prestige classes are just a kludge to get around the inherent limitations of the system.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
I like variety, but I also like the classes to be different. I don't like all classes looking similar. As I said before. I don't want druids wearing plate mail and swinging a bastard sword. I want classes to be unique. I want them to be able to do things other classes can't do.

I disagree. It's not about classes but characters.

Right now, in AD&D, one druid is like another druid. Skills is a limited remedy to the situation, but it does not fix the problem. If don't want a druid who uses a bastard sword as a weapon, fine, but the system should not exclude such a possibility. What if I want something like that?

[Ari Rahikkala]

Why do CRPGs need to use rules designed for pen-and-paper RPGs anyway ?