Less complex combat in RPGs is allegedly superior according to random retards

[Makabb]

RPG combat system should be elegant.The core concepts should be simple.The ideals of this would be Fallout, Jagged Alliance or X-com.Out of small set of rules, you get a highly tactical combat system that exemplifies the old design cliché simple to learn, hard to master.
In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.

 

[Greatness]

Encounter design is what's truly important. The greatest most elegant combat engine ever created would still be banal without good encounter design.

 

[Makabb]

Encounter design is what's truly important. The greatest most elegant combat engine ever created would still be banal without good encounter design.

I will take the greatest combat system without proper encounter design than the greatest encounter design with shit combat because then i wouldn't play anyway.

 

[nomask7]

People who haven't played Dark Omen don't know what good combat and design mean.

One thing it has that CRPGs don't have is strategic movement - both of enemies and your own troops. Some CRPGs have tactical movement - movement within a single encounter - but not map wide or level wide strategic movement and scouting.

I'll quote from a previous message of mine:

There's not a single Infinity Engine game that is half as interesting and cool as Dark Omen. Developers could learn a lot from that game, e.g. that real-time is more thrilling than real-time with pause. Or imagine a dynamic dungeon where groups of monsters appear and move from place to place as expertly designed as levels of Dark Omen? Finally, it would matter how much time you spend thinking about which path to take or twiddling your inventory. It would matter when you go and where you go. Scouting and spells to do with scouting would matter. You wouldn't want to be pinched by two or three groups of monsters at the same time. Dividing up your party would suddenly be a possibly good strategy - like intercept a group of wizard-killers with your warrior before they reach your wizard.

Imagine also how interesting a teleport spell would become - you could use your wizard to, say, teleport behind a far-away but advancing group of archers and maul them with a fireball before teleporting back to safety. This sort of thing was one of the fun things you could do in Dark Omen.

 

[Athelas]

Fallout (...) tactical combat system

In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.

You might be confusing 'complex' with 'convoluted'. Only the latter is a bad thing, and even then, something that's convoluted can still offer plenty of genuine complexity.

 

[Makabb]

In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.You might be confusing 'complex' with 'convoluted'. Only the latter is a bad thing, and even then, something that's convoluted can still offer plenty of genuine complexity.

Its complexity lies in terms of modifiers and rules you need to track, thus it's usually too much for the player to use in a computer game (effectively).

 

[Athelas]

In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.You might be confusing 'complex' with 'convoluted'. Only the latter is a bad thing, and even then, something that's convoluted can still offer plenty of genuine complexity.

Its complexity lies in terms of modifiers and rules you need to track, thus it's usually too much for the player to use in a computer game (effectively).

It's not very hard to track, it's just presented in an obfuscating, non-transparent manner, like with the bizarre concept of Thac0 (the concept of how it's presented, not the concept of hit accuracy).

 

[Makabb]

In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.You might be confusing 'complex' with 'convoluted'. Only the latter is a bad thing, and even then, something that's convoluted can still offer plenty of genuine complexity.

Its complexity lies in terms of modifiers and rules you need to track, thus it's usually too much for the player to use in a computer game (effectively).

It's not very hard to track, it's just presented in an obfuscating, non-transparent manner, like with the bizarre concept of Thac0 (the concept of how it's presented, not the concept of hit accuracy).

Dnd complicates even the simplest actions, hindering combat with rules that apply only in select instances, every weapon has its damage associated with die roll and there are multiple weapons of the same type that duplicate each other, every attack requires at least two die rolls to be a hit.

 

[Telengard]

D&D is weak-sauce for complexity. It certainly is heavily rule-bloated with its contingency-based rules system, especially in later editions. But it's just a basic strategy game of old with a tacked on persistent character system and Tolkien fantasy. If you're going to talk complexity, you should start with the actual complex ones, like Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth or Millenniums End. Even Twilight 2000 is more complex than early versions of D&D.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

RPG combat system should be elegant.The core concepts should be simple.The ideals of this would be Fallout, Jagged Alliance or X-com.Out of small set of rules, you get a highly tactical combat system that exemplifies the old design cliché simple to learn, hard to master.
In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.

Idk, I'm a bit jaded anymore when someone says "complex" or "convoluted". Seen it too much in all my years to be considerate. A lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. The only way for me to really know if I agree with soemeone isn't to read a post they made, but to play the game they didn't like and see if I concur.

My thought is a game or simulation is best when it has many overlapping simple forces. The keyword is overlapping. When they overlap they combine to create what's actually a complex phenomena. It's not actually complex in a bad way, but to a player it can seemhard to predict exactly how it combines.

I'll try to give example what I mean. Some forces:
Force: Player moving up and down and left and right.
Force: Objects which exist in that 2d vertical space, like bricks or clouds.

Now just make them overlap. This means one affects the other, or they collide in some way. So a player can move onto a brick or a cloud or maybe even fall through a brick or a cloud (if it breaks?).

Now just add more forces and overlap ALL of them. Example:
Force: Player moving up and down and left and right.
Force: Objects which exist in that 2d vertical space, like bricks or clouds.
Force: Breakable objects or characters.

So now a player can 'break'. Any item in the 2d vertical space can also break. But what makes it break? So far, there's only a player and other objects in the world. Maybe the player or objects break if they're in proximity. Maybe some objects break easier than others, depending on how long the player stands on them. For that you need:
Force: Time.

Adding a dimension, like going from 2d to 3d, is like adding another force. As long as it overlaps with the others then it will add to the "complexity" of the world.

Note that Jagged Alliance 2 (not sure about 1) had height as a consideration. If you were on a roof, for example, it was easier to hit someone in the distance who was behind a rock than it would be if you were on the ground. This was psuedo-3d.

Reason I brought all this up is because I think the best games do something like this. They create many simple to understand things and then make them overlap. They usually avoid technical things or methodical things like inventory management or stat management or long dialogues or cryptic skills/spells/abilities. They focus more on the environment - like puzzles or twitch movements like running/jumping/climbing/flying or shooting or exploiting layouts. The joy of the game is in the ease to start playing and overlap.

If something takes time to understand AND removes you from the game, it's not as easy to play. What if you're trying to figure out a puzzle and it's taking some time? Well puzzles are usually a process of elimination. Even as it takes time, you're DOING something. By contrast, a game which has crypitic abilities or spells might have you reading a manual or reading the spell description. This removes you from the game and makes the game harder to play. The best games don't have this.

Tetris and Super Mario Brothers are old games and practiced these things better than many other games which're much newer. In fact, I still play many games today which have completely ignored the elegance and effectiveness of Tetris. I think to some extent newer designers are rediscovering these old insights and putting them in their modern games.

If only every game designer which graduated HAD to make a Tetris clone to graduate... Or at least something on the scale of a couple worlds in Super Mario Brothers. They'd learn a lot about what a game is (and isn't).

 

[xrm1]

D&D is not overly complex, most D&D CRPGs just had horrible combat implementations. TOEE combat still feels great, it's only flaw was the camera perspective that made it sometimes impossible to target small or prone enemies when they were behind some bigger unit.
TOEE like combat with a 3D camera or a higher perspective would be the best thing ever.

 

[octavius]

D&D is not overly complex, most D&D CRPGs just had horrible combat implementations.

And yet the Gold Box games had the best combat of any any DOS era CRPGs, and the IE games had some of the best combat of the Windows era CRPGs.
So how excactly did these "horrible combat implementations" manifest themselves in these games?

 

[Lilura]

TOEE like combat with a 3D camera or a higher perspective would be the best thing ever.

Already been done with Silent Storm.

 

[DraQ]

Dnd complicates even the simplest actions, hindering combat with rules that apply only in select instances

That's not complexity. That's kludginess and lack of consistency.

there are multiple weapons of the same type that duplicate each other

That's indicative of insufficient complexity - the system lacks means to distinguish between different things it tries to represent.

every attack requires at least two die rolls to be a hit.

Irrelevant outside of Gazebo.

Fallout (...) tactical combat system

In comparison DnD games combat is bloated and overly complex.

You might be confusing 'complex' with 'convoluted'. Only the latter is a bad thing, and even then, something that's convoluted can still offer plenty of genuine complexity.

 

[Old Hans]

id love to see a turn based combat system that uses a similar dice system as BloodBowl or Warhammer Fantasy 3rd edition.

 

[Mustawd]

id love to see a turn based combat system that uses a similar dice system as BloodBowl or Warhammer Fantasy 3rd edition.

Loved the older GW editions. WH40k...not so much.

 

[DarKPenguiN]

Stop picking on D&D... god...Dammit.

 

[rezaf]

D&D is not overly complex, most D&D CRPGs just had horrible combat implementations.

And yet the Gold Box games had the best combat of any any DOS era CRPGs, and the IE games had some of the best combat of the Windows era CRPGs.
So how excactly did these "horrible combat implementations" manifest themselves in these games?

Yeah, basic D&D combat has usually been rather straight forward (I only really know the editions up tp 3.5). How's SPECIAL simpler than D&D? How's JA simpler than D&D? How's X-Com simpler than D&D?
All these games have WAY more stats that (can) affect "normal" combat results than D&D has.

Less complex combat, as you describe it, is more about systems like the one in the new XCOM ... which is not an RPG, though. So I guess you want Diablo? Or Zelda?

 

[octavius]

Who are you replying to?

 

[Snorkack]

Can someone fix the thread title please?





sorry for being nitpicky

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I fixed the thread title. Always happy to help.

 

[a Goat]

Fallout combat was shit tho. All you could do was controlling single party member(PC), moving around and using items(including weapons) and skills(in combat? rarely).
Compare it to Jagged Alliance(2) you've also mentioned. You've had full control over your entire team, you could go prone, sneak, blow up walls to get into building etc.

The point of it all is depth, not complexity. Fallout lacks in depth. Infinity Engine games also lack in depth as long as you forget about magic system. I mean what does fighter do in these games? Runs around and hits things. It's as deep as Diablo or Dungeon Siege.
Complexity is often associated with depth because when something is streamlined to hell you simply can't do anything.

Of course if some game would have very basic combat and encounter design but would focus on other aspects than that, combat being shallow doesn't make it bad.

 

[Sykar]

D&D is weak-sauce for complexity. It certainly is heavily rule-bloated with its contingency-based rules system, especially in later editions. But it's just a basic strategy game of old with a tacked on persistent character system and Tolkien fantasy. If you're going to talk complexity, you should start with the actual complex ones, like Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth or Millenniums End. Even Twilight 2000 is more complex than early versions of D&D.

Why? Putting a point into a combat skill every 3-5 levels is highly complex for the retarded masses of today. Who cares about fixed stats and no tactical options when you can bash that goblin with your 18/00 strength fighter into tiny bits thanks to retarded +3 to hit and +6 damage. You'd one shot the little bugger on a roll of 1 with your bare fists.



On a slightly more serious note, the biggest part of combat in early D&D were your dice rolls for attributes...

 

[Ramireza]

Fallout 1/2 Combat is crap because you cant control your party members in combat.

 

[Makabb]

Because in Fallout 1/2 you are the chosen one, super hero of epic proportions that saves the world and everyone. You can do it single handledly that's why you don't need to control your party members.