whereas Bioware made a very focused effort with the system of their own.
And a very shallow one. Even though DA:O has a few strengths over AD&D, it still falls short because it is superficial, and not really a system as such but a bunch of gameplay mechanics thrown into a bucket and shaken together.
But somehow it is still better than many implementations of AD&D there were. I wanted to see this system develop. Sadly it was dumbed down.
My argument is: you can make a system tailored for the gameplay from the scratch.
My argument is: Why would you do such a thing? Seriously, it's very simple: A system needs to form a greater whole. To do that, you can't make all the choices for your game design and then try to design a system around that. You need to start with a vision, then a system.
I agree about the need for a system to be one coherent whole. However, let's also recognise the danger of templates - templates do not take advantage of the maximum capacity the medium has to offer and introduce various artificial constructs. Stat bloat is one of them. HP is another.
Look, you're saying: "Design the game, then make a system for it."
I'm saying: "Envision the game, pick a system, then make your game with it."
Your alternative is: "Envision the game, design a system, then make your game with it."
No, I am saying: "Envision the game, then design system around all the premises".
Again, history is on my side. Systems "tailor-made" for cRPGs are often unbalanced, crappy and too chaotic and arbitrary to be called systems. They also have the dubious honor of having less good cRPGs than the proven system-based ones.
Which work in PnP and do not have to in cRPGs, by default. As we agreed - changes are always necessary.
but its amatourish implementation in a cRPG.
Did I say "using a proven system is fool-proof"? No. I said it was strictly surperior to inventing your own home-made system.[/quote]
Not in every case, I believe. It is certainly more convenient and safe. But its also lazy. I think game develoeprs do need to think out of the box and add new solutions. For example, plenty systems have HP, which is purely artificial construct used in P&P, for convenience sake. Both in cRPGs and P&P it results in idiotic situations, where a naked level 20 character can take 20 bullets in the chest, just because. Why use something so contrived, when there are better ways which can be conveyed through gameplay? This is because someone used a template and did not even bother finding a solution which would better support his vision of gameplay e.g. brutal combat with many types of still treatable wounds, etc.
Templates "lock you" in the box and do not allow you to attack the problem from another angle. This is the opposite issue to the one Codex is used to - normally we complain about new games being too different from the games of the yesteryears. Nonetheless, this is one of critical problems few developers address, determining much of the enjoyment that can be derived from a game. I think the only reason Obsidian is enjoying prestige at the 'Dex is their willingness to add a few interesting twists - which is commendable. Now if only they approached them as professionals would...
Look. It is quite simple: Video game developers are basically fan-amateurs in RPG system-development. And I have never, ever played a fan-made system that wasn't complete crap.
Yeah, but they also are the ones who can come up with gameplay, with due to limitation of the medium and opportunities it offers must be different. Template PnP systems do not really support them
. As a result in my opinion most cRPGs are actually against the sense of the RPGs - which is having an adventure - and add artificial barriers where that do not facilitate it. It stands in the way of innovation (as opposed to "innovashun", where the dev simply substitutes one template with another, e.g. FPS game).
I feel that, for instance, Obsidian recognizes this problem, but they always go about introducing innovative solutions in the wrong way. They do not develop them from the scratch with a proper system in mind, but come up with ideas which work out of context and cannot support overall picture. If they bothered with a system approach, they could implement their novel ideas, integrating them seamlessly with gameplay in the way bast games do e.g. Thief series.
I do agree that certain elements of existing systems can be transplanted into cRPGs, but even then there is no reason to stick to limitations of PnP. An example of that would be the optional Power-word based magic system described in Pathfinder "Ultimate Magic" book whereby the player memorizes spells made from spell-components, instead of ready solutions. It is not frequently used due to the sheer clusterfuck that tracking all power words involves, but it fits the framework of cRPGs perfectly, because computer can easily keep track of the info. Hell, you can actually twist it even more e.g. make character memorize just power-words from which he can spontaneously form spells - which will offer more flexibility, while retaining resource conservation aspect of the game. This is hardly doable in PnP, where it would create micromanagement nightmare.
Again: I also concede that there should be a system design specialist in the team, but I will reiterate: implementing templates, especially uncritical implementation, is not always the smartest choice.
I like debating with you Mrowak. You're a true bro.
lol
