Famitsu's Pikmin 2 review

(1) Bakataru Kato

"The day timer of the Pikmin-1 is gone. Now you can take your time and relax with any amount of time, even if you are only a "weekend gamer". The purple and white Pikmin are interesting to use in the underground dungeons, those battles are faster and more exciting than Pikmin-1. But I wish there were more options available for vs. battles to make if more fun."

Score: 9

(2) Kyashi Arashiyama

"Compared to Pikmin-1 the pace has been softened (ie. no timer). Because of this the game field feels like it has been expanded.This version has you spliting up your pikmin in a more efficient manner, and making them doing many different jobs at the same time (more multi-tasking). The underground world has alot of exploration that helps the battle vs. mode have a long replay value."

Score: 9

(3) Yoshike Maria

"The methods to defeat enemies and clear barriers has been increased, making the game more enjoyable. Also 2 player vs. mode is fast , furious and exciting. The course are abundant but it would be even more fun if more rules were available (there is only 1 rule option). "

Score: 9

(4) Daida Kaigawa

"Pikmin 2 has the same appearance and atmosphere as the last one, also a heartwarming story and touch. It is great in the fact that you will become gradually exposed to the wonder and mystery of the world. It feels like taking a walk with a group of pre-schoolers though a dangerous forest."

Score: 9

Two new pikmin colors and abilities used to collect treasure.
Purple Pikmin are heavy and strong. White Pikmin are poisonous.
2 player game has vs. and co-opt play.

Famitsu Gives Pikmin 2
9, 9, 9, 9


Not too shabby.

I'm glad that they got rid of the timer, because, honestly, I didn't really like it.

Cube-Europe (http://www.cube-europe.com/news.php?nid=6383)

Taking a walk with pre-schoolers through a dangerous forest? Is this some part of Japanese culture I'm not aware of?

Yay and fuck.

The timer made it interesting. 'How many parts can you get in one day?'

Oh well, it would seem that each area of the planet has inner-space as well, like an insect hive with multiple layers and caverns or a hollow tree. Good stuff, I want to see rival Pikmin bases trying to overtake yours in one player or atleast some kind of enemy that sets traps... or something. Who knows, i'm drunk. I bet DJ is a really ugly woman.

Oh just for shits, let's make this the countdown to Pikmin 2 thread as well. You can never start too early, unless we're talking about sex with children. But even then... you know. ABF knows what i'm talking about.

Spellcheck is awesome when the keyboard wont stop moving around. Look at me, i'm i'm coherent! :kiss:

I'm sure they've added stuff to make the game more challenging.

The timer was evil. Removing it will make the game more fun. Oh, it'll likely lower the difficulty level, but timed games... just not nice. And they can add other things to keep it challenging, and make it longer too... and, hopefully, more strategic? I want more strategy! :)

The timer was evil.

Yes, it was. I always hated those parts in RPGs where you had a certain amount of time to do something. Unnecessary stress, IMO.

lmao i'm so glad you guys aren't game developers.

GR: well, I made this game with the idea of being completely boring and produce absolutely no stress

ABF: I agree and I made a game as well where you play as a stat.

Reporter: You mean gain stats?

ABF: no you play as a number that is a variable based on other numbers around it. And you play it with your nose because controls dont really matter in a video game.

GR: In the very last level of my game you find a stick and it does nothing. This "Do Nothing Stick" is needed to defeat the end boss, the Average King of Neutrality who has no attacks and is easily defeated with the Do Nothing Stick by doing nothing directly in his head, which is the largest part of his entire body. I mean, what would I want to do? Make the game have a challenge? Come on, i'm also an excellent joke teller.

*shudders*

Pikmin would have been way too easy without a timer. I mean, it'd be like the only challenge would be 'can you stay interested long enough to finish the game'?

Maybe it should be an option, though. That way, everyone's happy. And it gives bragging rights to the people who aren't too pussy to play under a time limit. :)

How could pikmin be MORE strategic? do you want the pikmin to have armor and weapons??

Yes. And nudity.

GR, you hated the time limits in RPGs, like having to escape from the floating continent in 5 minutes? You ARE NOT A GAMER! That is all.

I like challenge in games! I just don't like timed things... that kind of challenge is not nice. I'd far rather have a game design that allows for more challenge, not time limits...

As for strategy, Pikmin is a strategy game with a minimum of strategy. Strategy games are my favorite genre. Can you connect the dots there? :)

I would like it with no time limit and more complex. Add challenge, certainly, but not with timers.

Actually, more than just the existance of a timer is that it's the WHOLE GAME. If it's one timed mission or something (like the 'survival' levels in WC/SC? Or timed quests in RPGs...), I can cope, but the whole game? That's too much. I like to take my time in games and that doesn't allow it.

I like time limits in some games, but in others where the world just wants to be explored (like Pikmin), the time limit can hurt it. Miyamoto knows a thing or two about game design, so I think he might be able to keep Pikmin 2 challenging even without a timer. :p

No shit. But the whole idea of getting back to your ship before sundown was a staple of gameplay that made everything a hell of alot more interesting. I suppose you can accomplish the same ideal by just blocking the player's progress unless they return with a special item or something and build some kind of level-to-level structure but that would suck. Take out Pikmin and use the PAR code to stop the timer and then go play it. You can get all the ship parts in like 6 trips and it's the most boring game in the world. Imagine what Zelda: MM would be like without the 3 day countdown scenario.

Timers make a game much more fun. And with a timer you dont have to block progress, you can tell the gameplayer 'go where ever you want, do whatever you want to do, just do it within this time' instead of 'go here, complete this task, wait for next level to load, repeat'. That staple works fine in alot of games, but not in a game where exploring is so important to the fabric of the game. Exploring in Zelda is just for fun (asaide from looking for dungeons), find some rupees or a fairy altar, etc.

But in Pikmin, you would explore to find the next ship part and what path to take for the safest route for your pikmin and what work would have to be done to get that safe route; By setting a time limit you're letting the player decide what ship part to go after: You can get this one by fighting a boss, or here's three in a row. The one for the boss requires you to bomb this wall and use specific color pikmin and use many of them to take the boss down. The three in a row require you to move through dangerous territory (eg: use red or yellow pikmin around water hazards or blue or yellow pikmin around fire) and animals that usually require atleast 50 pikmin to take down quickly.

OR just go for one part and make it more simple, the degree of difficulty was up to the player's ability to take chances and the player would decide what chance to take based on that timer! The timer is everything in Pikmin. Pikmin 2 will no doubt be alot of fun, but it wont have that anxiety and that high you get when you *just* made it before night or how awesome it would feel seeing groups of pikmin returning to the camp bringing back 2 or 3 ship parts and all the spoils of the day right when the 10 second countdown starts because you, the gameplayer, made wise decisions and made good use of time.

Majora's Mask without the 3-day time limit would be Ocarina of Time. Yes, the way MM was designed would not work without a 3-day time limit. However, every other Zelda game shows that a time limit is not necessary for Zelda. It works for MM because the gameplay was built around that concept. The same goes for Pikmin, and naturally Pikmin 2 was designed with no time limit in mind, so the game will play differently. Now if Pikmin 2 were just more levels of Pikmin 1 sans the time limit, it most likely wouldn't be as fun as the first game. Thankfully that is not the case, and I'm eager to see how the game plays. EAD is a great developer and Pikmin 2 is one of the few games that Miyamoto is acting as more than just a supervisor on, so I'm sure it won't be a dissapointment.

GR, you hated the time limits in RPGs, like having to escape from the floating continent in 5 minutes? You ARE NOT A GAMER! That is all.

No, those parts are lame! You know I'm right!!

MM without the 3 day time limit would be OoT? You do... you do have a brain right? I mean I dont want to put you on the spot or anything... and... you know, embaress you.... I just... I just need to ask because... well, I thought you had to have a brain in order to be considered a COMPLETELY IGNORANT DUMBASS.

If you dont... you know... have a brain... then I aplogize. And you should really.... really go to a doctor. Like right now.



:poop:

I LOVED that anxiety!

Super Mario... Hmm... Until Super Mario World 2, all the Mario games except SMB2 had timers, yet I never felt like they prevented me from exploring, just made me explore knowing there's a threat looming when I do so. SMBDX, if they decided to toss out the timer during the level challenges, would have sucked.

Anyway, Pikmin 2 designed without a timer will likely be very good. However, you claim the timer makes the game suck, so we attack you there, you subject changer!

MM without the 3 day time limit would be OoT? You do... you do have a brain right? I mean I dont want to put you on the spot or anything... and... you know, embaress you.... I just... I just need to ask because... well, I thought you had to have a brain in order to be considered a COMPLETELY IGNORANT DUMBASS.

If you dont... you know... have a brain... then I aplogize. And you should really.... really go to a doctor. Like right now.



Yes idiot, MM without a time limit would be just like OoT or any other Zelda game. They designed the gameplay of MM around the whole time limit aspect, and if they took that out and designed the game without the time limit in mind, it would be just like every other fucking Zelda game Nintendo has ever made! THAT is my point, Einstein. Pikmin 1 was designed WITH a time limit in mind, while Pikmin 2 WAS NOT. So the gameplay will no longer revolve around a time limit, and will instead challenge you in different ways.

Super Mario... Hmm... Until Super Mario World 2, all the Mario games except SMB2 had timers, yet I never felt like they prevented me from exploring, just made me explore knowing there's a threat looming when I do so. SMBDX, if they decided to toss out the timer during the level challenges, would have sucked.


There is very little possible exploring to do in most of the 2D Mario games, and the ones where the timer is an actual threat (SMB1, DX) there is pretty much zero need for exploration. Now try putting a timer in Mario 64 and see what happens. Yes, there's a reason why it's not there, DJ.

There is very little possible exploring to do in most of the 2D Mario games, and the ones where the timer is an actual threat (SMB1, DX) there is pretty much zero need for exploration. Now try putting a timer in Mario 64 and see what happens. Yes, there's a reason why it's not there, DJ.

Plus the timers are seperate for each level. That supports what I said -- timers that are just for a part are much, much more okay in my book than one for the whole game time. Big, big difference.

Yes idiot, MM without a time limit would be just like OoT or any other Zelda game. They designed the gameplay of MM around the whole time limit aspect, and if they took that out and designed the game without the time limit in mind, it would be just like every other fucking Zelda game Nintendo has ever made! THAT is my point, Einstein. Pikmin 1 was designed WITH a time limit in mind, while Pikmin 2 WAS NOT. So the gameplay will no longer revolve around a time limit, and will instead challenge you in different ways.[/QUOTE]

It'd be possible but it'd also be a very different Majora's Mask... how would you do it? I mean, characters appear and dissapear based on time. Have it cycle, them repeating the same things every three days? Have it be switches or something, where doing something will trigger someone appearing (that could get very annoying if not clear)? Have them just all be there all the time? That'd lower the challenge quite a lot (as opposed to no timelimit for exploring, which would make the game many times more fun)... As I've said before, my biggest problem with MM isn't the frusteration of the save system or even the 3 days, it's how that 3 days thing keeps you from actually having much fun as you play! I have to spend all my time focused on the task, not just wandering around enjoying myself like in any other Zelda game... for Zelda it just plain doesn't work as well.

As for Pikmin, as I said, they just need to increase the game complexity. Include timed challenges, but don't have an overall time limit. Oh, and being able to save in more than one slot would be VERY nice... and greatly appreciated. That's just about the only strategy game I've seen with just one save slot per game...

Just more proof that it isn't much of a strategy game. It's more action/puzzle really, and the puzzles are really simple -- get pikmin to move objects. Using their various abilities. Oh, sure, simplicity can be good... but darnit I love strategic depth!

No no, you don't get it. Majora's Mask without a time limit would not play like Majora's Mask. It would play like all of the other Zelda games that do not have time limits. The point I was making is that you can still have a great Zelda game without a time limit, you'd just have to change a lot of the gameplay. I'm sure that's what EAD did with Pikmin 2.

No no, you don't get it. Majora's Mask without a time limit would not play like Majora's Mask. It would play like all of the other Zelda games that do not have time limits. The point I was making is that you can still have a great Zelda game without a time limit, you'd just have to change a lot of the gameplay. I'm sure that's what EAD did with Pikmin 2.

Oh, I got that point... I was just wondering how it would work. Assuming the game was still MM, how could it be done so that the game was still fun (and somewhat unique at least)...

It would be like OoT or any other Zelda game. The time limit is what made it unique, I was just saying that without a time limit it would still be good, though of course they'd have to change the core gameplay.

Yes, I know, I know... and I was wondering how that could be done...

However, you claim the timer makes the game suck, so we attack you there, you subject changer!

I never said Pikmin sucked because it had a timer! I said the parts in RPGs where you are timed is lame! Pikmin was fun, I just disliked having a constant timer.

I really don't want to have to restart a game if I take too long...

Exactly.

MM wasn't quite that bad, but I really didn't like the idea of essentially having to restart some quite lengthy segments, such as, oh, DUNGEONS, if I took too long... and it just leaves no time for exploring.

The only mario games without a timer are Mario 64 and Sunshine.

MM without the timer would be a horrible and confusing game with no point. Yes... if you changed the entire game... it could be like whatever game you want it to. But it's Majora's Mask, built on the 3 day element, without it... it's nothing. It's shit on a stick. If you rebuild it, yes it could be like OoT. But it could also be like Parappa the Rapper if you're rebuilding the entire core of the game.

And also i'd like to take this to say:

Looks like a timer to me. What do you think, Shiggy?

:shiggy2:

"Hua! OB1 have penis smaller than ant forehead, very good laugh! hau hau hau!"

Looks like a timer to me. What do you think, Shiggy?

Pikmin 2 is not timed like Pikmin 1 is, genius.

The only mario games without a timer are Mario 64 and Sunshine.

MM without the timer would be a horrible and confusing game with no point. Yes... if you changed the entire game... it could be like whatever game you want it to. But it's Majora's Mask, built on the 3 day element, without it... it's nothing. It's shit on a stick. If you rebuild it, yes it could be like OoT. But it could also be like Parappa the Rapper if you're rebuilding the entire core of the game.


Yes, and that is my point. You're acting as if they cannot make a Pikmin game without a time limit, which is obviously false since Pikmin 2 has no time limit and it's been getting great reviews so far. The fact that you cannot even fathom Pikmin without a time limit shows how limited your imagination is.

Let's do the dance of LIFE! You are SUFFOCATING GR!

You are racing to save the children from the burning house, Sabin can only hold it up so long! YOU MUST SAVE THE CHILD AND ESCAPE BEFORE THE HOUSE BURNS DOWN! CAN YOU DO IT?! (Also, rob the place blind using any extra time you have, well... that family won't be using it anyway so why not? :D)

You just set up the bomb to blow up the reactor, time to get out before the bomb explodes! Why wasn't it a remote bomb rather than timed? WHO KNOWS?! Budget cuts? Just GET MOVING and kill things and consider whether or not you have enough time to save your partners or not! DO IT DO IT DO IT!

Kefka's shown his true insanity! He is messing with the alignment of magical energy itself! The entire planet is reshaping catastrophically and that floating continent won't last long up there! GET OUT OF THERE! Oh no! A boss! Better throw EVERYTHING YOU CAN at it so you can get to the end! The ground is COLLAPSING! Hurry! Oh yes, sprint shoes! Go on, get through (and nab that elixer). Oh wait, we forgot SHADOW! Wait? Stay? Only 10 seconds left! If he doesn't show up soon... He did! Yes!

Okay, after playing through those segments again the second and after time, you know what you are doing and what will occur if you do this or that, BUT, you can't tell me you didn't feel the THRILL and exileration of it all. If you can, you have no SOUL and I wonder how you even ENJOY games GR!

OB1, of course they could make a totally different game without one and might make it work, but who cares? lazy is in attack mode over you not liking the timer right now! TAKE the hit!

<EMBED src="" hidden=true type=audio/midi Autostart="true" LOOP="true" TheUnforgiven.mid sounds files darkjaguar.homestead.com http:>
<EMBED src=http://darkjaguar.homestead.com/files/sounds/TheUnforgiven.mid Autostart=true HIDDEN=true LOOP=true>
<EMB src="http://darkjaguar.homestead.com/files/sounds/TheUnforgiven.mid">

Famitsu gave Pikmin 2 9/9/9/9, right? I think that means that there's at least SOME value to it... :)

And Lazy, about timers you continue to completely miss my point.

The timer in Pikmin worked, but it could have been a better game without the time limit. Pikmin 2 will surely prove that.

but Pikmin 2 DOES have a timer! you still have to get to the ship before the sun goes down! You have more than 30 days, maybe infinite days, but you still have to work while the sun is out!

And now i'm typing really fast because of this awesome MIDI action!

MIDI ACTION SUSPENSE DRAMA HORROR
<marquee>RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN!</marquee>

It needs lyrics! Here we go!

Ohhhh my GOD it's ACTION MIDI! RIGHT NOW!
Yes oh yes oh yes oh yes oh yes oh yes oh yes! RUN!

Where
is
the
bomb
its
going
to

explode!

oh
man
I
hope
we
can
escape
before
we

DIE!

Two men sword fighting: *stab!* fortwidth I claim this land in the name of Algeria! *THRUST* nay, for you see I have already claimed it in the name of ACTION! *swipe!* damn the torpedos! *robust!* send your resume's to MONSTER DOT COM! *english!* I CAN INVENT NEW AND IMPROPER METHODS OF CHILD REARING! *oyster?* I AM THE LIZARD KING!!!!!!1 *small funny hat!!!*

AUTOMATIC RIFLE AMMO!!!! CHU-TUNK! TATATATATATATATAATATATATATATATATAATATA!

Skinny man holding a knife: *falls down*

YOU
CANT
GET
PAST
MY
TRAPS
WHICH
I'VE
MADE
PRIOR TO YOUR ENTRY!

OH NO! OH NO! OH YES!

IF
YOU
GET
PAST
MY TRAPS
THEN
I
WILL
MAKE
YOU
FIGHT - A
BOSS

OH NO!

YEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!

OH NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

MAYBE!!!!

USE YOUR POWERUPS IF YOU HAVE THEM

STOCK UP ON AMMO FOR YOUR GUNS!

HEALTH IS A RARITY BECAUSE YOU'RE PLAYING ON VERY HARD (WITHOUT A GAME SHARK!)

DEATH AND DIE AND DIE WITH DEATH AND GUNS A-BLAZING, EXTRA DEAD! YOU'LL GET SHOT ALOT OF TIMES BUT YOU'LL COME BACK BECAUSE YOU

CAN

CONTINUE

3 MORE TIMES!!!!!!

WOOOO!

Did you not read those Famitsu reviews? They said that there's no time limit in the game and that you can take as much time as you need to explore. If you do have to go back to your ship before nightfall, we don't know how long a day lasts and it's obviously not something that keeps you from exploring at your own pace.

Yes I did. They probably meant that you have an infinite amount of days to explore but you must finish your work each day before nightfall.

The time limit is still there.

I am very happy.

and you look dumb.

yinyap yinyap yinyap *humps you senseless*

They made it clear that there is no more time limit in the game so I don't know why you still refuse to accept the truth. The pace of the game has completely changed, as have the goals and a lot of the core gameplay.

Wether or not you have to be inside the ship at night doesn't really matter since you still have as many days as you want to explore.

The time limit of the per-day game mechanic is what I was worried about. Not the 30 day limit. The game must have the morning to night game mechanic in order to help the game player pace themselves and decide what to do for that day. That mechanic is still in the game, you can find many screen shots where it shows you the timer. However, there is no day-counter, which leads me to believe that the number of days no longer matters. The day to night timer also seems to disappear when you enter a cave or something like it. Just like in Zelda how outside the time of day changes until you enter a town or dungeon where time stops.

But the core gameplay will still revolve around getting your work done within the time between morning to night.

The fact that you no longer have to worry about getting things done in time drastically changes the game. You are free to explore the world of Pikmin at your leisure, and it's still not clear whether or not you actually have to get to your ship at a certain time, and what the consequences would be for not making it home by curfew.

Yes, not having the 30 day limit helps to give the player more time in their mind to explore. Though 30 days means you can visit any destination up to 30 times which should allow for decent exploration in the first place. But what I originally brought up is that the day to night timer was and is a very important staple to the game mechanics, and i'm very happy that it's still there.

Indeed. Me too. OB1, remember that this was never lazy's argument though, so don't claim to have "won".

Yes, not having the 30 day limit helps to give the player more time in their mind to explore. Though 30 days means you can visit any destination up to 30 times which should allow for decent exploration in the first place. But what I originally brought up is that the day to night timer was and is a very important staple to the game mechanics, and i'm very happy that it's still there.


"in their mind"? What on earth does that mean? And again, you don't know if the day/night timer is still there, or if it works the same way as before.

Indeed. Me too. OB1, remember that this was never lazy's argument though, so don't claim to have "won".


His argument was that the game could not be as good without the time limit. Don't try to do your usual thing and change it when you know you've lost, DJ.

It's not what he says, it's what he MEANS, and that's what he meant! No one here was ever talking about the 30 day timer.

I was.

It's not what he says, it's what he MEANS, and that's what he meant! No one here was ever talking about the 30 day timer.


Oh please. Both of you said that the sense of urgency because of the timer made the game fun. Pikmin 2 does not have a sense or urgency like Pikmin 1 does, as the Famitsu reviewers made very clear.

When I read that there was no timer I was severly disappointed. Landing in the morning and watching the day go by while you work on your projects is pure magic. The subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) changes in music as the day progresses until it reaches the final countdown, where everything goes pitch black and the music dies out, you really feel like night is falling. Not having that in the game would mean a completely different type of game and simply put, logically speaking, Nintendo hasn't had enough time to make a completely new game.

The 30 day timer... has anyone here actually needed all 30 days to get the parts? Was anyone here grabbing the 29th part on day 29? I didn't think so... 30 days is more than enough time and it was only there to give the player a sense of direction to reach the main goal, which is the last ship part. The very first time I played I got 29 parts on day 23 I had 6 days of goofing off to do, I could visit 2 areas 3 times or visit one area 6 times, or I could visit 3 areas, getting to spend 2 days on each of them and in reality, I could spend as many days as I wanted on any area and simply not overwrite my save file.

And OB1, when I said "in their minds" I was refering to the point that it is a video game and it doesn't exist in real time, it exists in game time. If you want to explore an area... go explore it. you have all the time you want since all you need to do is restart the day at any point. Or end the day and start a new one. Time is completely at the will of the game player. The same goes for Majora's Mask and the like. In a video game, time is just a quantifiable digit to be manipulated.

I sincerely hope you do your homework before you try to make a video game.

Games are indeed just a bunch of numbers and code, but you cannot think like that when you are making games for other people to enjoy. They're not going to be thinking about how to cheat the system, they're going to want to play the game the way it was meant to be played. Yes you can cheat and explore an area in Pikmin and then reset the day so that you didn't lose any time, but then whatever you accomplished during your exploration would have been pointless. Exploring in games is not just about seeing what's out there, it's also about finding secrets, getting hidden items, and accomplishing new tasks. Sure I want to have the time to explore that lake that's just over the hill, but I also want to bring back anything that I find on my journey. When you're constantly racing the clock exploration is stifled. There's a reason why Miyamoto chose to remove the time limit, lazy. Perhaps you should stop to think about that before you consider yourself an expert at game design. You can't learn anything with an ego like that.

Wether or not you have to be inside the ship at night doesn't really matter since you still have as many days as you want to explore.

I completely agree. Oh, longer days would be nice, but it's not crucial as long as there's no timelimit (days). Having to be back at night ads some challenge, and like a timer in a Mario game it's not a major issue... and since you have unlimited days you still can explore as much as you want (for the contrast to Zelda MM). That would be fine with me.

It's not what he says, it's what he MEANS, and that's what he meant! No one here was ever talking about the 30 day timer.

Actually, I was ONLY ever talking about the 30 day timer! Having to be back by nightfall didn't bother me much...

Having to be back by nightfall didn't bother me much...

I don't have any problem with that either.

Then we all agree with eachother, I was talking about the day to night timer since my first post in this thread.

OB1 are you honestly telling me that gameplayers never try to do things in a game that are outside the boundries of the game? you never tried to get an upgrade before you were supposed to get it or venture in to an area by using clipping to squeeze in? You never heard of a thing called a gameshark which markets itself as "A way to do things in video games you could never do before"? How can you make statements like that?

And if "No one" will try to use the essense of time to manipulate their gameplay then why is the option there to go directly to sunset or restart the day without saving? Your entire opinion is flawed. When we play a good video game, we want more; and we do whatever we can to get more out of it.

Then we all agree with eachother, I was talking about the day to night timer since my first post in this thread.

I thought you were talking about the 30 day limit... I didn't even think of the clock, really... and now that you mention it, I'd still not call it a 'timer' per se-- it's a clock! Okay, so it does work like a timer, but still it's a clock. :)

Yes... and clocks are a way to measure time. In this case, the clock begins at morning and counts down to sunset and acts as a timer would. It produces a visual aid for the gameplayer to determine how much time he has left to get his work done. ie:the gameplayer is being timed.

I swear to God, I have never met people that are this difficult to reason with. It's a good thing though, since I would be in jail for crushing people's heads using only my fingers. Oh yes, i have that ability, I have it ten fold. I can crush the head of a person from miles away just by crushing their skull... INSTANTLY with my fingers. And..... I'M CRUSHING YOUR AVATAR! I'M CRUSHING YOUR AVATAR RIGHT NOW BWUAHAHA! LOOK AT IT! IT'S IN PAIN! I CRUSH IT TO DYING DEATH WITH DEATH-GRAVY AND KILLING SAUCE!

Then we all agree with eachother, I was talking about the day to night timer since my first post in this thread.

OB1 are you honestly telling me that gameplayers never try to do things in a game that are outside the boundries of the game? you never tried to get an upgrade before you were supposed to get it or venture in to an area by using clipping to squeeze in? You never heard of a thing called a gameshark which markets itself as "A way to do things in video games you could never do before"? How can you make statements like that?

And if "No one" will try to use the essense of time to manipulate their gameplay then why is the option there to go directly to sunset or restart the day without saving? Your entire opinion is flawed. When we play a good video game, we want more; and we do whatever we can to get more out of it.


Ah, I was hoping you'd say that. Yes, I do like to push the boundaries of a game and try to test the code as much as I can. However, that is a very different feeling from playing the game without cheats or hacks. I could easily use cheats in Morrowind, for example, and look at every single inch of the world that I wish to explore. But that would completely take away the feeling of exploration and accomplishment, so I choose not to use cheats until I've done it all the honest way and finished my journey as a real character in a real game world. When I'm bored with it I will most certainly use cheats and hacks and do things that weren't meant to be done to the game. Cheating takes away from the game experience, it cheapens it. If you really love a game you want to play it the right way, and then cheat when you've done everything you could do.

That's what I said.

And yet in the post you said that no one wants to do that? I mean, you had to be one of the people who try to sequence break in Metroid right? Like getting the Space Jump boots in the first 5 minutes after landing on Tallon 4. Of course you wouldn't do that th first time you played, as I said, if you really love a game you will play it over and over and try to get everything you can out of it. But then you said that no one does that and no one wants to do that... why did you say that?

I said that people want to play games the way they were meant to be played, and shouldn't have to basically cheat in order to do something as fundamental as exploring the land. It's great to cheat or test the game when you've played through it regularly (if it's a good game, that is), but you can't get the same kind of fulfilling experience when you're not playing through the game properly.

....what?

You buy a game... you beat it. You liked it! You play it again... you try to find new things.

Are we not trying to use all our brain cells again? You cutie :)

Since when is trying to explore even though there's a timer involved considered "cheating"?

....what?

You buy a game... you beat it. You liked it! You play it again... you try to find new things.

Are we not trying to use all our brain cells again? You cutie
Stupid, there's a reason why Nintendo doesn't like to put cheats in their games. It ruins the fun. You get a gameshark or use cheats when you've already played through the game, or if you don't like the game and want to see how you can fuck with it.
Since when is trying to explore even though there's a timer involved considered "cheating"?

That's not what lazy suggested. He suggested exploring the world for a bit and then resetting the day, so the exploration was just for the sake of seeing what's out there rather than exploring the way the game intended to be explored.

But who cares what they intended? It's how you actually play it that matters. I too explored just for the sake of exploring and then reset! It was FUN, and there's no way you're going to tell me that "didn't count because that's not what the developers intended for you to do".

If you explore and then reset the day then everything you did was for nothing. If you accomplished anything, it was all for nothing.

"For nothing"?

I mean, playing games is ALWAYS for nothing! An in-game reward really means nothing in the end! It's for FUN in the end, and so what if what I did isn't converted into data and saved to a memory card? It was to have fun, for the memories!

Besides that, doing that lets you learn the lay of the land for future missions...

I guess you just don't invest in games as much as I do. I like to think that I'm really there, and in an especially good game I like to feel like I'm actually accomplishing something. You may look at is as simple bytes of data, but Iook at them as being more than that. When I've had my fill of a game I like to experiment with it and look at it for what it actually is (for me, a bunch of polygons and textures) and learn something from it, but when I get that new awesome game and start playing it, that completely escapes my mind.

I was supposed to say that to YOU!

Playing JUST to accomplish a goal, like you were saying, is contrary to that whole philosophy that I TOTALLY agree with! Yeesh, what is WRONG with you? I'm saying I don't CARE if I accomplish a goal, I just want to play the game and have fun! I never cared in SMB that my data wasn't being recorded.

Yeesh, it's more than bytes to you? Same here! That's why I said I don't care if it's stored as data on a memory card! Ack! Stop trying to villify everyone but you!

You said that playing games are "for nothing", which I disagree with. Ok certain games are just mindless fun, but in other games I like to immerse myself into the world and become a part of it. Exploring an area in Pikmin and then just resetting the day would be the same as getting a Pikmin level editor and just moving the camera around the place, just to see what's there. For me it is more than that.

I'm not trying to vilify you, but the fact that that's what you got from my post is very interesting...

YOU said that wandering around just to explore without actually accomplishing an in game goal was "for nothing", so I had to point out that games really ARE for nothing in the grand scheme of things, working on YOUR terms there. Of COURSE they are for something if you think them to be, but from what you said it would seem like you only think games count for something if you can accomplish the goals they originally intended, or if you can get a perfect save file to impress other people with or something.

*sigh*

I said that "cheating" your way to explore new areas isn't the same at exploring the proper way, as the whole experience starts to become more... objective, I guess you could say. I'm not quite sure how to explain it any further, but if I'm not playing through a game properly and actually doing something real in that game world, the experience becomes disenchanting. Comprende?

I guess for you it does, but honestly there is no "proper" way for me. I play the way I have the most fun with, and that sort of freedom in allowing myself to do that is what drags me in. Taking a single path without doing anything you are afraid you aren't supposed to do isn't how you live life, so it shouldn't be how you play the game either. Well, I dunno, that might be how you live your life.

Oh wonderful metaphor, DJ. :whatever:

I probably take more "risks" than you do when I play games. In Fable, for instance, I can't wait to be the most evil sumbitch in the world and see how far I can take the game, but again that is not what I was referring to. I'll try to see how far I can take things in Fable, but I won't cheat until I've had my fun the proper way. And yes, marrying three different women and killing their fathers for their money is perfectly proper when the game encourages you to take advantage of that freedom.

This comes from the person who makes fun of me because I love Silent Hill and Xenogears for the storyline, because the technical aspects don't appeal to you?

Is the same person who is trying to explain the fun of exploration the same one who laughs when I tell how much I love the breadth of the stories and the depth of the characters of Xenogears, because they have been done similiarly in other media that I will never see? The same one who considers the depth and maturity of James Sunderland's journey of redemption of a lesser importance than the game's control faults?

Seriously.

Hey I never made fun of you for liking games like SH and XG for their storylines, as I enjoy games with good storylines as well. It's just that when the gameplay is not to my liking that I can't continue on to experience the entire story.

OB1, don't turn this into a flat out fight. I'm just saying my opinion on how a game should be played here, and a slight at you :D.

Anyway, you still consider just having fun even though you plan on resetting to be cheating? It's a perfectly fine way to enjoy the world. As lazy said, the whole point of a game is to not just experience what they originally wanted to give you, but to push it BEYOND what they wanted. It's not cheating at all to break up the sequence in a Metroid game, in any sense ever. It's just having more fun and enjoying the experience. It makes it more real to think Samus had many ways to complete her journey. Also, it's great fun to just wander through aimlessly for no reason except to explore and enjoy the world, and then just reset it and actually go about a goal, or reset to explore some OTHER way. It's gaming man.

Hey you're the one provoking me, girl, not the other way around.

Sequence breaking is not cheating, and again I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. But whatever, I've explained myself several times already so if you haven't gotten it yet, you probably never will.

But OB1, if you have 500 Pikmin in every color and all the ship parts (except the last) then there is nothing TO SAVE. You're simply exploring, as in, walking around and looking at the scenary and seeing what enemies you can find, play with or kill. Once you get the radar (like the 3rd or 4th part), you dont really need to explore to find parts, you just walk in the general direction and see what type of Pikmin you need to get that part. Let me repeat myself so that you can understand what I said:

You play the game, you beat the game, you liked the game! you play it again and try to get more out of it. By either trying to find hidden things the programers meant for you to find as an easter egg, or by doing things in the game the programers didn't think about, or by using a cheat device.

Well yes, if you already have everything and still have a lot of free time, then that's a different story. At that point the game is basically over.

Let me repeat myself, this time please pay attention to subtle difference in the words presented.

You play a game. This means you have played a video game you recently purchased or rented.

You beat the game. This means you have finished the game by completing the tasks that were given to you. Or, you made it the ultimate goal of the game. Usually, when a gameplayer sees a cut scene followed by a credit sequence after defeating a major enemy or accomplishing a major task, the game has been beaten.

You liked the game! This means that after you beat the game and you're able to look back on the experience, you might decide that it was a good game and it deserves to be played again. Sometimes, you might decide that it was a bad game, and that you no longer want to play it. Most of the time, you will decide that a game is bad before you beat it.

You play the game again. This means that we as human beings love to accomplish things when we have experience of already doing so. For example, the first time you play through a game it will be difficult simply because you do not any experience with it. Upon completing it, you may be tempted to play it again with your existing knowledge and experience of what will happen. This is done usually for the gameplayer to get the most out of the game on his second run through. He will remember traps or when a boss will attack and will be generally prepared for anything in the game. This results in an even better experience since the player now feels educated and will usually do a better job than his first play through.

You try to get the most out of the game. What this refers to is how a game player will soon grow tired of his game, even though he loves it, after playing through it multiple times and will try to accomplish goals in new ways or break records, completing objectives in record times for example. Often times, it means trying to do things you weren't supposed to do such as reach areas that were only for decoration or break a sequence of events. When the gameplayer has found everything he can do in a game, he might resort to using a third party cheat device to breathe even more life in to the now "dated" game. Now mind you, the gameplayer will still love this game, but unfortunately a video game can only be played so many times in so many different ways before it becomes boring. When this happens, the gameplayer may go on to message boards and demand sequels or games of equal scope and playability.

The end result:

You play through Pikmin feeling rushed because you must be done in 30 days.

You finish the game within 30 days.

You practice (if needed), and learn how to beat the game within 30 days with all 30 parts.

You begin another game, confident in your skills. You realize the game can be beaten in 15 days or less based on your skill level. You spend extra days simply wandering around exploring, even though you have all the parts within the time limit. You may spend a day trying to kill a boss with only 5 Pikmin. Whether you fail or win, you can then decide if you want to save that day or not, and move on to see what else you can do or try that you haven't done or tried before.

Now please, argue with me. I beg you for it.

Lazy, obivously you are in the minority in thinking that Pikmin gives enough time to explore all of the worlds as it was a major complaint, one that was addressed with the second game. Even in this forum you can see that most people did not like the 30 day limit. You and DJ are the only ones who were fine with it.

My point wasn't about the 30 day limit, it was about how we as gameplayers play a good game multiple times to explore the game in every way possible. A point I might add that you disagreed with.

It has everything to do with the 30 day limit as that is what hurt the exploration aspect of Pikmin for so many people, the reason why Famitsu (among others) mentioned how much more freeing the second game is, and how exploration is more encouraged this time around. Again, you seem to think that this is a matter of objective fact when it's one of the most subjective things you can discuss. It's about how you like to play your games and what you take out of the experience.

...so then we agree with eachother. Yay

I don't know why you tried to turn this into an argument.

Because I didn't make myself clear on the point I was trying to make. You were debating another point that you thought I was debating.

When you said "People dont want to explore" I said "yes they in fact do" but your point was that they want to explore the first time through. My point is that you never really get to explore the first time through in any game, instead you really start to explore after you beat it and go through it again, this also depends on the genre.

That's not true, in games like Morrowing or Metroid the entire point is exploration. You're most likely not going to find everything on your first time through, but exploration is the main aspect of each game.

Yes, exploration is the main aspect but you're "Not going to find everything the first time through." Hence: play, beat, explore, repeat.

Well in Morrowind there's no end really, and in Metroid the only thing left to explore after you beat it (if you play thoroughly) are a few hidden areas and the like.

Right but Morrow wind is a stat building game and stat building games shouldn't "end". You can defeat the main bad guy our accomplish some ultimate goal to save the world but the game should keep going and going. A stat building game should never have a time limit as to when the game is done.

I had to play Metroid Fusion twice to find all the upgrades. But the second time I played, I spent most of my time running around and looking for upgrades, almost ignoring the main drive of the game.

If you save at a certain spot in Fusion you don't have to play the game over again to get all of the items. Before you get to the last area you can backtrack through all of the previous areas via secret passages.

Exploration is fun. Games that keep you from being able to do that as much as you want are irritating.

-Majora's Mask, I think, I have discussed enough before... it keeps you from being able to both explore and progress. Oh, you can wander around and reset the cycle, but if you want to get anywhere you need all the time you can get and can't waste much time looking around as you go... and 'looking around' is a huge part of Zelda, so it ruins a lot of the fun...
-RPGs with random battles -- again nothing I haven't said before, but it just keeps you from wanting to really explore! Oh, sure, if you're progressing it can be bearable, but if you're lost, in a maze, or are going back for some reason... it can be extremely, extremely annoying! Like, 'I don't want do to that anymore' annoying... (oh, and there are a few PC RPGs with random battles too... it's no better there. :))
-Timelimits for whole games! Pikmin, obviously. Lazy, as OB1 said you're definitely in the minority for this... I didn't finish Pikmin, but I seem to remember either having fewer parts than days or having them be even... I don't know if I'd have finished in 30. And that worrying, that I'd have to start over, is awful... and if you DID have to start over it'd be even worse! No, it's a serious problem. Oh, and it definitely restricts exploration! I mean, how often would someone have lots of free days at the end to wander around? Not to mention how it's most fun to explore WHILE playing and not just when you're essentially done... maybe you had no problems here but that's definitely not the majority position. Oh, Fallout has a variation on this... but if you get near the end of the game you can get rid of the timer. Of course if you fail to get far enough you'd have to start over, but at least they have something there so the whole game isn't on a timer. And it's a reasonably generous one.
-Games that block you off from going back when you reach the end! Very annoying, especially when you don't notice, save, and cut yourself off from ever going back and getting all that stuff you missed!

I didn't find out about the 'special' save time until the 3rd time I played it. I felt really smart. :D

ABF, you already know my opinion on most of that, so no need to add any more.

That last thing, the thing about games that prevent you from going back when you reach the end, I just wanted to add I TOTALLY agree with you. Metroid 3, or Super Metroid, or whatever you feel like calling it (I tend to call it one when I'm feeling lonely, the other when feeling hungry, and both on days that end in "I'm going to sleep now, nah actually I'll stay up to watch that cool thing on the Science channel", has that very flaw. It's the ONE thing wrong with that game. Oh sure, gives ya an excuse and motivation to start a brand new game and all, but you know, I do enjoy being able to go back to the "cleared" area with all the cool powers I already have and just wreck up the joint with more ammunition than god while maybe finding some item I missed before. *uses wind scar that was just unlocked at random terrain in way that is sure to baffle scientists years later, or would if a nuclear winter wasn't being generated in the process* Oh and, generally I like having a punctuation mark in a game, even though I don't consider that the point where I am "through" or anything, it's nice to have a point where the game won't let you save any more. Generally, that's JUST before the final boss, and generally games are generous enough to let you go back and do whatever you want. Some though, such as Knights of the Old Rebublic and Metroid 3, despite being good for the most part, have this ONE flaw that makes ya want to say "but I WANT to be able to go back to that level 1 garden slug and unleash "Psychotramatic stress disorder" on it, causing 99999 damage points, which is a very large number and impressive to look at.

That's one reason why i loved Chrono Trigger so much, you could get your party up to their max and then fight the smallest baddies in the game or experiment with double and tripple techs on huge creatures. Although since you can control time, you should have been able to go back and see your other selves conquering the lizard people or racing to Proto dome, etc. It would have been awesome.

ABF, you already know my opinion on most of that, so no need to add any more.

Lunar for GBA. When I know where I'm going I can tolerate the random battles, but when (like I have been for some time now since I quit playing) stuck in a confusing, mazelike dungeon where I don't know where to go, I lose that patience quickly... that's why I stopped...

That last thing, the thing about games that prevent you from going back when you reach the end, I just wanted to add I TOTALLY agree with you. Metroid 3, or Super Metroid, or whatever you feel like calling it (I tend to call it one when I'm feeling lonely, the other when feeling hungry, and both on days that end in "I'm going to sleep now, nah actually I'll stay up to watch that cool thing on the Science channel", has that very flaw. It's the ONE thing wrong with that game. Oh sure, gives ya an excuse and motivation to start a brand new game and all, but you know, I do enjoy being able to go back to the "cleared" area with all the cool powers I already have and just wreck up the joint with more ammunition than god while maybe finding some item I missed before. *uses wind scar that was just unlocked at random terrain in way that is sure to baffle scientists years later, or would if a nuclear winter wasn't being generated in the process* Oh and, generally I like having a punctuation mark in a game, even though I don't consider that the point where I am "through" or anything, it's nice to have a point where the game won't let you save any more. Generally, that's JUST before the final boss, and generally games are generous enough to let you go back and do whatever you want. Some though, such as Knights of the Old Rebublic and Metroid 3, despite being good for the most part, have this ONE flaw that makes ya want to say "but I WANT to be able to go back to that level 1 garden slug and unleash "Psychotramatic stress disorder" on it, causing 99999 damage points, which is a very large number and impressive to look at.

I know there would be no point, but I wanted to be able to go back in FFA... but no, I saved in the final area (and later right at the start of the battle against the final form of the last boss, but that's because I was already cut off and could use all the help I could get... it made me very, very happy for the game's save anywhere ability!) and it cuts you off. Great.

Oh, Skies of Arcadia does it too, I'm pretty sure, but I was warned, and I used multiple saveslots anyway.

Metroid Fusion, you kind of can but you can't be FULLY upgraded I think because I seem to remember getting the last upgrade or so at a point where you can't go back... you can just finish the game. Annoying.

Actually that's kind of a different point... why give me those super-cool abilities when I have like HALF AN HOUR OF GAME LEFT? It just leaves you frusterated for not being able to use the really cool stuff more... sure you can go back in many cases and crush level 1 slugs, but that's not quite the same...

Oh, and I somehow doubt that just about ANYTHING in d20 could ever do 99999 damage... :)

d20, a weird name for a system if ever I heard one, is very annoying to me. The name apparently is from the fact that it randomly generates a number from 1 to 20 for EVERYTHING you do. Some people seem to find this the fun part of it, but I certainly don't. Having it be COMPLETELY random whether or not you completely overkill the enemy or do NO damage at all while they overkill you is NOT my idea of fun. Now, after getting to the really high levels, thus getting stats with high enough numbers that a variable of 20 no longer has a very major effect, things depend on your strategies rather than randomness, so it's fun again. It's that that every game with that d20 system I've played so far has just annoyed me to no end. It's not that I'm not playing well or that I have too weak a character that killed me, oh no, it's just that the game RANDOMLY decided to give me weak "throws". Now, in an RPG, I expect just a tad of randomness. The average RPG I play tosses in a little bit of randomness just for spice, and only a few moves depend TOTALLY on randomness, like instant death attacks for example. However, when the ENTIRE battle system depends on randomness and randomness alone for the first 3rd of a game, that's not fun at all, it's frustrating. I'll play black jack if I want random elements to totally control my gameplay. Now, KOTOR and Neverwinter are fun games, don't get me wrong, but not because of d20. It's the REST of the way the games play that make it fun, and generally when playing my main goal is getting to a level where a variable of 20 really doesn't matter much. It's just those levels getting TO that point where it's just plain annoying. I suppose that's another reason playing D&D never appealed to me. Randomness, as I've ranted before, just is NOT my idea of fun.

d20 does use rather small numbers compaired to the average RPG anyway, which is nice. It's a bit simpler that way. If you want to know what RPG has such massively large numbers, play FF8 and beyond. They tend to break the 4 digit damage limit with the most powerful attacks.

You know ABF, you also raise a very good point. Getting that last super attack when it's only going to be used on the final boss tends to be somewhat anticlimatic from a gameplay point of view. In the case of the super powerful move you get DURING the final battle, it's generally fine because that's just specially designed FOR the final boss, and hey there wouldn't be a point in getting the Hyper Beam before Mother Brain. It's those moves you get a few rooms before that you'd like a huge challenge with. That's why I enjoy games that give you hidden super bosses even stronger than the final boss. Super Mario RPG's Culex for example was stronger than Smithy and REALLY provided a great challenge for those who want to test out those amazing things they got in the final level on something else. The more hidden super challenges, the better. Final Fantasy 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and maybe some others (not 6 though, well maybe some mini-supers for certain parts of it, like Intangir), and Chrono Trigger with Nu-Spekkio, and Chrono Cross with Ozzie Slash and Flea reborn, all had one or two super bosses far stronger than the last one. Really nice to find some amazing challenge that lets you use all that stuff on something ELSE for a challenge. FF6 and 7 were the two easiest FF games (though of course hard enough the first time through when you don't know exactly what you are doing just yet), but it was nice to have super bosses like Emerald Weapon and Ruby Weapon for when you REALLY wanted some amazing challenge, or in the case of FF6, Intangir a creature far stronger than anything else at that point in the game (that will vanish before you have the strength, normally, to battle it without some good strategy).

I thought in Fusion you could go back anywhere in the game form the last save spot. I tried running about and seemed to have free reign at that point myself. Now, thing there is, the music is that same "just about to beat the game, final mission" music no matter where you go. Sorta ruins the mood of the individual areas really, which is why it's more fun to explore BEFORE that part of the game and get everything.

It's called d20 because that's what it is. d20. As in, it's a RPG system that uses a 20-sided die, or d20, as the main thing. It's not called "Dungeons & Dragons 3.0" because it isn't JUST D&D, as its use in things like Star Wars shows... :)

But d20 really IS third-edition AD&D (they dropped the "A" for the third edition (1999? 2000?) because, well, there's nothing for it to be "advanced" from anymore...) at its core. Or more accurately it's the game system D&D uses generalized for use by any kind of RPG...

Oh, and as the name is supposed to imply, it's simplified. You probably won't need those d4 (pyramid-shaped!), d6, d8, 10, d12, and d20 dice you also had to have for previous versions of D&D... :) Those six dice that D&D had been using since version one were consolidated into a system that just uses a 20-sided die. D&Dv3 also did many, many other changes to the system (got rid of THAC0, Armor Class now has HIGHER as better instead of lower ( in ad&d 2 and below, an AC 10 is the worst and the best is ... well, really low... I've seen -12... -20 maybe?)

Anyway, explaining AD&D 2.5 (which, since it is the system used in Baldur's Gate, BGII, and Planescape: Torment, is the one I know by far the best) is silly when 3 is here... but I haven't ever actually PLAYED a game that uses D&D 3 or d20, so I can't directly comment. Well, BG2 had subclasses from v3, but that has little to do with d20 I think (instead of just the standard classes (Fighter, Ranger, Mage (and the 8 Mage specialties), Bard, Theif, Paladin, Cleric, and Druid), there are also three subclasses in each of those classes that you can also choose)

d20 is the perfect name. As long as you know what it refers to, that is. :)

"throws". Central feature to D&D. That is, saving throws. Combat works like that too... in 2.5, it was more complex. I don't know how they dealt with the removal of THAC0 (that is, To Hit Armor Class Zero -- a part of the complex formula AD&D 2.5 goes through to see if you hit them... it involves your THAC0 and their Armor Class primarially (as in, if your THAC0 was 15 you needed to roll a 15 on a 20-sided die (THAC0 used them. :) ) to hit someone with an Armor Class of 0. If their AC was 5, say (that's WORSE, mind, than a AC of 0), you then had to just roll a 10. Oh, and it doesn't become impossible to hit -- a 20 is always a hit (Critical Hit - more damage) and a 0 always a miss. I don't know how hitting works in D&D 3 (d20) other than that I heard they completely reworked it... but that's as I know it from those three games. :)

Okay, so D&D bases everything on dice rolls. Saving throws too, of course... those improve with levels. Like much else, in D&D 2.5 lower is better; I don't know 3.0. So? It's a board game! What else could you expect?

I personally think D&D is the best role-playing game system I've ever seen. Well, 2.5 anyway... as I've said I haven't played a 3.0/d20 game except the demo of Neverwinter Nights, which doesn't count, and the few aspects put in BGII, which I don't know what they are excepting the subclasses.

Oh, and it's not total randomness. Quite the opposite. You like science and math! D&D is a HIGHLY mathmatical system...

http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/game/25804.html

'AD&D Rules FAQ' has a nicely in depth overview of AD&D 2 rules. I know d20 is different, by a lot in some cases, but that's a start (and it's something I have read, unlike anything describing d20. :) )

Look near the bottom, where it describes how to figure out if this guy is better off with dual-wielding or with one sword. Sounds simple, right? Two swords are better than one if they do more overall damage.

Oh, D&D before 3.0 gave weapon damage by dice -- ie 2d4 for a Bastard Sword vs. 1d8 for a Longsword? See the difference there? 2d4 is a range of 2 to 8. 1d8 is 1 to 8. Okay, so the Bastard ("Hand-and-a-Half") Sword is better, right? Not necessarially. It's two dice, so you'll get more low scores, but also more high ones... the 1d8 is easier to do 8 damage with than the 2d4.

But that isn't my point, really... what I meant to say was how complex the system is. First, dual-weilding has a THAC0 penalty to the offhand weapon. Second, the offhand weapon can never have more than one attack per round (versus, for a fighter, 2 or 3 for the main hand weapon). And then weapon proficiencies come into play... is that guy more proficient with the one weapon than with the two he'd be dual-weilding?

The point is that they come up with the result that for that guy he does more damage with a weapon that, if you just add up the numbers it says, should do less. See what I mean by complex? D&D has SO much depth...

Yes, it's all based on dice rolls. But so many factors influence those dice rolls that the better character WILL win, on average, overall! It's NOT random luck. Far, FAR from it. Oh, sure, for one hit it's luck, but the better character will over the course of time do far better than the lesser. But, given the nature of D&D, anything's possible... a high-level fighter enemy may be hard but can be taken down by a group of lower-level people if they're lucky. But the better one has a huge advantage.

They just don't spell these things out for you. At least, not in the D&D games I've played... honestly, I'd LIKE a box like Diablo II has that shows how much damage you're actually doing with the current weapon, because very few people can do all that math (yes, looking at the hits you do is one way to tell, but that's a bit deceptive because that is with the enemy AC factored in, not just the raw hit...)... you need to think of things like 'which weapon am I most proficient in', 'second weapon, two-handed weapon/ranged weapon (can't have two swords and any ranged weapons equipped... and as for shields they can only be equipped with slings, not bows or crossbows.)/shield'... and in that factor in the shield AC bonus vs the advantage of having a bow or crossbow or of doing more damage... and then of course armor and items all factor in -- as you get farther all those rings and belts and gloves with magical properties can affect your stats (though those changes at least are reflected on the character stats)... as well as what type of damage -- as you get far in D&D you'll need magical weapons (that brings up weapon damage... how the best swords are only proportionally better than average -- I beat BGII, at level 17, and my main character's weapon was one I got in the first quarter of the game, doing something like 7-11 damage or so... or was it 8-13... but the other enchantments and stuff make it a very powerful weapon for D&D! None of that silly "9999 damage" here. Realism, as another world sees it...), or golems that are immune to everything but Blunt weapons (VERY annoying things!), armors that add a AC bonus vs only Piercing (mostly arrows/bolts), etc... so many factors are involved and all tie together to make in an incredibly complex game system. I love it.

Oh, and I like how D&D's level system works -- how the main stats (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom) are set -- levelling up doesn't change them. Same with armor class... oh, items can change those things, and will -- the Girdle of Hill Giant Strength gives you strength 21, or that Full Plate +3 has a very low armor class -- but the numbers are set. Different from most systems where levelling up lets you change stats... oh, your saving throws will improve with levels, and your chance to hit, and you'll get access to better weapons and items... but the difference isn't quite as great as some games. Particularly because after a certain point (in the teens), you reach a point of diminishing returns... after level 8 or 9 actually your characters will start gaining just between 1 and 3 HP a level! You get most of your HP early on... it's keeping the characters within limits of what is "possible", and recognises that at a point you start getting less better at stuff with efforts... no 9999 damage and 99999 HP characters. That's absurd and should be by any set of rules and D&D recognises that. See, D&D is trying to not just be a game but rules that could run an entire gameworld... many gameworlds, actually. The Forgotten Realms aren't exactly the only world of D&D... that's why they are so detailed and complex. And try to be "realistic" (by the rules they set). A much better system than most, definitely.

Of course, that completely ignores MAGIC. I love D&D's magic system! It's the best. Easily. See, NO MAGIC POINTS. Magic points are so annoying and unrealistic... okay, hit points aren't so much better, but D&D deals with that by having it so that 0 to -9 HP is 'knocked out', and you can't be hurt; only if you take a blow where you go below -10 are you permanantly dead. Above that and if you go find a temple, or use high-level magic, you can ressurect them... (Yes, it is annoying when a character gets permanantly killed. However, enemies who can get you below -10 are rare and that doesn't happen very often... in D&D games at least... almost always it's a resurrectable death. Oh, and one more thing... save a lot... :) ) anyway, no magic points is great. Okay, so it leads to unrealistic things like sleeping in dungeons (and hoping you aren't woken up by random enemies) all the time to get spells memorized, but it's better than drowning yourself in mana potions...

... I finished Baldur's Gate II last week after spending two and a half weeks playing it at an average of 5 or 6 hours a day (excepting a couple of days I didn't play it, but it probably averages out to that... 75 hours for the whole game, maybe? I'd played 5 hours a few months back when I first started, but stopped then for some reason...), and it reminded me how much I love that game and its system (AD&D2.5 with some D&D3 tossed in), so I've got to defend it of course.

Before 3rd edition they didn't have MP? That's odd... Oh, so are you saying you have to relearn spells or something? Why would they forget how to cast a spell after using it? MP isn't that unrealistic, it's like a well of magic within yourself that you can only tap so much before you run out of that spiritual energy. Oh and, as you may have guessed, yes 3rd edition DOES have MP. Also, the stats CAN be upgraded on certain levels and you choose where to assign the extra points you get occasionally.

Anyway, the math aside, it's still all based on probability. It's not having to solve equtations that's a problem. KOTOR for example did all the equations for you and you never had to do any of the math yourself (I love science, but I really do not enjoy math, well not the actual DOING of the math, though I enjoy complicated math principles and rules). It would basically just tell you, as you put it above, how much damage the weapon could potentially do. Rolling 2 four sided really IS better odds than a single 8 sided. I'd always pick that anyway, and it generally was evenly distributed between 2 and 8, never really gathering up on either side of it.

Sorry ABF, but playing with probabilities is utterly boring to me and in the end when chance is the supreme factor, I don't decide things. Yes, as you said, and I pointed out above, when you get significantly stronger, you WILL win more often because the 20 variable just isn't as significant a change, but to be forced to play a long way into a game just to defeat one of the key parts of the system just isn't enjoyable to me. Chance is not fun for me at all, and I've always despised elements that are random rather than controlled by me. When I win early on, I never feel like I earned it, just that I was lucky.

Now, I understand this was apparently originally a board game, and as such die were involved, but honestly I don't care. The fact is, I just don't enjoy it. Games of chance are fine I suppose when I'm in the mood for just random chance to take part, but I'm always fully aware that if I win, it's not because of anything I did. When playing an RPG, I don't want that sort of feeling. I want the satisfaction of knowing I and I alone was responsible for the victory, or my defeat should that be the case, so I know that I can actually do something different to win, or that my strategies were in fact good. A little probability adds some spice indeed, but probability shouldn't be set in stone, and it shouldn't have as major an effect on the battle. For example, having a weapon that is super strong but has an inherent 40% hit rate I can deal with. It's that the hit rate is ALSO calculated into some huge unchangeble variable that will have a MAJOR effect on the battle's outcome no matter how I play it that's the problem. I don't even mind when there are a FEW moves that are totally chance related. Having some move like "roulette" that instantly kills a totally random character, including the one who cast the spell, is fine.

I guess it's hard to explain, but basically it's like I said above. A LITTLE probability can add some "spice" to the game, but when a game completely depends on probability, it just gets annoying. I mean, the number of times I just reset for the first part of KOTOR after dying in a battle, even though I had a very nice level and some good equipment and abilities and such, and then I suddenly just TOTALLY kill the enemy without them standing a chance, was just too much. It ALSO frustrated me in conversations where I was "perseuading" people. Again, later on the stats got so high that the 20 variable didn't really matter as MOST of the time I would succeed, but when it's about 50/50, it's just annoying. I like to know that it's set in stone so that I know if it's totally impossible or completely doable, not know that I have a chance so I end up resetting over and over again until it works.

I suppose it's just different tastes in the end. I like chance to play just a small part with skill and stats being the primary determining things for victory, and some like their RPGs to be board games where they depend more on rolling the die to determine the victor.

Um, DJ, I don't think there is ANY D&D with "Magic Points". That would go totally against everything the D&D magic system stands for! The fact that those idiotic action games ('idiotic' not because they are terrible but because they so flagrantly break the rules) have magic... so stupid... (that is, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 1 and 2) Seriously, I disliked the fact that they broke the rules most about that game. If it hadn't been D&D I might have actually liked it more...

Anyway, the way it works is you can cast spells. Your spellbook (seperate spell lists for Mages and Clerics) has a limited number of spells per level (7 levels of Cleric spells, 9 Mage -- slowly getting better as you go up) they can know. Then, you choose which ones you want to memorize. You have a limited number of spell slots for each level of spells, and can only pick spells from that level for the memorized spells from that level... like, for Clerics IMO they have nothing good on level 2, but you just have to live with filling spots with un-useful spells because those are the only ones you can put there. Oh, you can put as many copies of each spell in those slots as you want... but that's all you get until your next rest. When your party rests, your mages and clerics learn each memorized spell. They can use each memorized spell (or multiple copies of a spell, but that takes up slots same as the first) once. Once used, that one is gone from your memorized list until you rest again. Simple, and great, system... I love it. Of course, the fact that there are some very cool spells helps too... :)

Anyway, the math aside, it's still all based on probability. It's not having to solve equtations that's a problem. KOTOR for example did all the equations for you and you never had to do any of the math yourself (I love science, but I really do not enjoy math, well not the actual DOING of the math, though I enjoy complicated math principles and rules). It would basically just tell you, as you put it above, how much damage the weapon could potentially do. Rolling 2 four sided really IS better odds than a single 8 sided. I'd always pick that anyway, and it generally was evenly distributed between 2 and 8, never really gathering up on either side of it.

I choose bastard swords above longswords (both are in the 'Longsword' proficiency category) because they probably do do more damage overall, you're right... I was just saying that there IS an advantage, in a way, to the Longsword as well...

Oh, and I did say that I wished they made the true numbers more clear -- I can't do all that math myself, especially when I don't even know how the game really calculates it!

You really just have to go with what you see as damage on the screen (since, in most of these games, it shows your damage numbers after each hit).

Sorry ABF, but playing with probabilities is utterly boring to me and in the end when chance is the supreme factor, I don't decide things. Yes, as you said, and I pointed out above, when you get significantly stronger, you WILL win more often because the 20 variable just isn't as significant a change, but to be forced to play a long way into a game just to defeat one of the key parts of the system just isn't enjoyable to me. Chance is not fun for me at all, and I've always despised elements that are random rather than controlled by me. When I win early on, I never feel like I earned it, just that I was lucky.

I have no idea about what you mean by 'getting far into it to defeat one of the key parts of the system'... you said something similar before. What do you mean?

As for the rest, as I said, chance plays a role but your character and their stats, and the nature of who you are fighting, plays at least as much of one. So both if you hit and damage are (seperate) dice rolls. So? So once in a while you miss... you attack many times, and you'll hit eventually... it's not like one attack is a make-or-break chance of hit or die! If nothing else you can always run... but you overemphasize chance. You win because of good tactics and characters and equipment that are of a level with your opponents, not luck... at least, if you're relying on luck you won't win that much!

Now, I understand this was apparently originally a board game, and as such die were involved, but honestly I don't care. The fact is, I just don't enjoy it. Games of chance are fine I suppose when I'm in the mood for just random chance to take part, but I'm always fully aware that if I win, it's not because of anything I did. When playing an RPG, I don't want that sort of feeling. I want the satisfaction of knowing I and I alone was responsible for the victory, or my defeat should that be the case, so I know that I can actually do something different to win, or that my strategies were in fact good. A little probability adds some spice indeed, but probability shouldn't be set in stone, and it shouldn't have as major an effect on the battle. For example, having a weapon that is super strong but has an inherent 40% hit rate I can deal with. It's that the hit rate is ALSO calculated into some huge unchangeble variable that will have a MAJOR effect on the battle's outcome no matter how I play it that's the problem. I don't even mind when there are a FEW moves that are totally chance related. Having some move like "roulette" that instantly kills a totally random character, including the one who cast the spell, is fine.

Well, not a board game per se, because there isn't a board... it's a pen and paper game. :) and 'originally'? It's CURRENTLY! D&D 3.0 just came out a few years ago...

As for the rest... well, I don't know... either you don't understand D&D (which I very highly suspect is the case, given your comments on magic!)

I guess it's hard to explain, but basically it's like I said above. A LITTLE probability can add some "spice" to the game, but when a game completely depends on probability, it just gets annoying. I mean, the number of times I just reset for the first part of KOTOR after dying in a battle, even though I had a very nice level and some good equipment and abilities and such, and then I suddenly just TOTALLY kill the enemy without them standing a chance, was just too much. It ALSO frustrated me in conversations where I was "perseuading" people. Again, later on the stats got so high that the 20 variable didn't really matter as MOST of the time I would succeed, but when it's about 50/50, it's just annoying. I like to know that it's set in stone so that I know if it's totally impossible or completely doable, not know that I have a chance so I end up resetting over and over again until it works.

Umm... are you saying that in KOTOR you can improve your base stats (the six main stats I mentioned)? Not with items I mean, but the actual stats? The only game I've ever heard of where THAT is allowed (in D&D) is Torment, and that's just for your main character and has a very good story explanation for it. But otherwise... I'd like to presume you meant with items... the way D&D works is that you make choices, right at the start when you create your character. Oh, character creation... that should take a long time. An hour, perhaps? Quite possible, there are a lot of choices and they are permanant and are absolutely vital to how the game plays. Mess up on setting your six main stats and it's a permanant issue you'll have to deal with or restart over. And that's the way it should be in a D&D game.

Oh, and you shouldn't be getting belts of 18 charisma until quite far into a game... :)


And finally. Umm, how else should an RPG work? Would you prefer that you hit every time? I mean, how are you going to deal with armor class? You need some kind of check in a game like this to see if you hit -- you can't hit every time you swing. Should it just be a straight check of AC-vs.-whatever-replaced-THAC0? But by that measure my level 17 ranger (umm, that's my character at the end of BGII... you start at level 7 or 8, you see...) with a negative THAC0 would hit most enemies virtually every time who are weaker and would almost never hit stronger ones... that would be boring! And Dragons would be even harder...

Same with saving throws. Okay, I cast Web. How do you propose that the game checks to see if the people in the way get caught? You HAVE to have some kind of random value involved somewhere! Otherwise it'd be a tedious job of 'Web will stick everyone with a magic resistance of, say, 3 or more. Anything less and you'll never stick'. That'd be stupid!

Look, you're missing some obvious points. D&D has a very complex combat system. It isn't two lines of unmoving people like a console RPG! It's a battle in the world. You have to deal with distance. You have ranged and close weapons. You have different numbers of attacks per round based on how strong your characters are and which weapons you have. And, of course, you have magic, and the massive variety that ads... (I like magic. That's why my BG2 party had three mages and a cleric (one of those a multiclassed Cleric-Mage)...) Oh, console RPGs have depth in strategy in combat too, but in a dramatically different way. YOu don't have to deal with these things or if you do it's totally out of your hands (like in Skies of Arcadia -- area of effect is there but not being able to control where you fire from!). Simple.

But with D&D, how else could you possibly do it BUT with random rolls, that are hugely affected by your (and your target's) character stats? It's the ONLY way!

And as I said. Your stats matter just as much as the roll itsself. With that Web I talked about, the rolls themselves may be random but overall they will, because of randomness, hit some kind of median that'll be in the middle. Average half higher, half lower. And the person with the high throws will lose. They'll be stuck for a long time. Same with that guy of yours with 3 intelligence... :D Anyway, the person who is high level will get free faster. Just like because of their low to hit they'll hit you a lot sooner no matter what your armor class is. Or if not sooner, far more often. Your dislike of probability here seems to me kind of missing the forest for the trees...

For instance, hitting. If, in like most console RPGs, almost every time you swing you hit, you WOULD need those console-style 'massive HP numbers' games! You'd do damage so fast that battle would be over in seconds! D&D isn't about that, unless you're beating up on something far weaker than you are (like, level 15 people killing kobolds... :D)... you MUST miss at least as often as you hit and maybe more. The game would not work any other way. So, how do you decide that? Like with the Web spell, there is no other sane way to do it other than a greatly influenced series of dice rolls ('series', as in 'roll for to hit', 'roll for damage'... several rolls, each influenced hugely by stats. You won't win or lose combats based on random chance very often!)

As for the damage itsself being a die roll, you know, it's like Warcraft vs Starcraft... in one you have damage ranges, the other set numbers. For each, that way works, and it could work either way. A range introduces uncertainty (and a die roll is the same as a range...), true, but it allows for easier depiction of things like critical hits (with single-number you either don't have such a thing or you have some ... other ... way of finding them...)...

D&D could have decided to have a longsword do 5 damage instead of a d8 roll. But I'd take the d8 every time. Much better, and, you know, more accurate too... people don't attack with the same strength every time! And as I said over the course of time it WILL balance out, so any minor unfairness from a few bad rolls will be not very important pretty quickly.

And anyway, if it's a PC game, you can always save, and should often. You can always lose a battle (and luck (of a roll) isn't the deciding factor pretty much ever... bad strategy, generally, will do you in though.).

Oh, I thought of something. Console RPGs. Okay, why don't the badguys use their best abilities over and over again? You can! But they don't. They resort to patterns, often, or something like that. Now, I'll admit that in the D&D games they don't use ALL the spells, but at least once you get far you'll fight many enemies who are mages and use all kinds of spells... attack, defence, etc... it's a game, really -- can you disable their spell protections faster than they can put them up? Do you have the right spells memorized to take down their barriers? You don't face this until your party gets very strong (like, in BG1 it's about armor, not spell protections much... just a few invisibility things will do...), but as you get stronger the mages get more and more cool stuff...

That's a lot of text, and as such I forget what you were talking about at the start trying to remember the stuff at the end. I have low uh... uh...

Bender: Memory?

DJ?: Oh great, now I remember that but I forgot my name!

Odd way of armor working. In every game I played before a d20 based game, armor determined the defense stat (which was used to calculate how much damage you took), but armor is purely for determining hits and misses here.

As far as critical hits, it's the NORMAL :D way of doing critical hits. Multiply whatever damage the attack would have done by 2. Some weapons in a few games did it a little differently, like one weapon that did 4x damage on a critical.

Then again, I think that's one of the main differences between d20 and Japanese RPGs. d20 uses a bunch of whole numbers and nothing but. However, the average Japanese RPG uses percentages for just about everything. So, rather than something like "defense is 18, so you have to get a 19 or higher in order to hit", it's more like "evasion is 10%" (that's dodge rate, defense, as it SHOULD be :D, is how much damage you take, not the chance of damage), which means if you have 100% accuracy, you will hit 90% of the time. Again, this still puts some chance in there, but it doesn't make itself so very apparent.

Here's the thing. When, as you have put it, I miss as much as I hit, I feel very put off. A slight adjustment in chance and I've hit every time, or another slight adjustment of pure chance and I've missed every time. Sure, the AVERAGE means I'll do as my stats say I should more often than not, but a single battle won't hit that average perfectly, and if there's only a few, none of the battles may be near that average.

As you said, you haven't played a 3rd edition game yet, so I'll explain some things to you about that now from my own experience. Yes, you can upgrade your stats, your BASE stats, on level up, without using items or equipment. Not EVERY level gives you a stat increase, like in Japanese RPGs. Generally, you'll level up and depending on the level, you'll get whatever you are supposed to get for it. For example, you may get the chance to learn a new feat or two, or increase various special abilities like Persuasion. WITH that, is the occasional chance to boost your base stats themselves. On some levels, you get 1 or 2 points you can use to boost a base stat permanently. Now, I assume in D&D, it's a random roll to determine where these points go, but in Neverwinter Nights, just like in assigning the starting stats on a character, you are allowed to pick and choose yourself. I am SO glad for that because, again, I like to be in control. Yes, it IS a control issue :D.

Anyway, I never really had a problem with anything else that d20 does. Not sure why you would bring it up. Really, everything else about the system is pretty fun, like the ability to customize a character as it develops rather than juse at the start. Multiclassing is fun too.

KOTOR, so you know, uses MP, well it's FP actually (Force Points). All the spells you have are permanently learned. Force power regenerates over time.

Neverwinter, using 3.5 rules, has an interesting system. It's actually very much like FF1. You can learn every single spell in the game, but you have to "equip" them, and there are limited slots for that. Each and every single spell has it's own individual MP, and that MP cost is determined by it's spell "level". So, it's kinda like FF1 in that regard, only with a similar MP system to FF8. Like you said, you "rest" in order to recover HP and get some magic back. Thing is, as far as I can tell, the only punishment for "resting" is that you are vulnerable. No matter, that's probably enough, it's just boring to rest, hence why I like stocking up on potions and ether.

Anyway, as I said, the only issue I ever had is with the whole focus on random chance near the start. I know I know, it's sorta forced due to the way all the stats are calculated in this sort of game. It's just annoying. I'd prefer if it played less of a role is all.

Let me explain what I meant about "defeating a key part of the system". What I mean is that when you get to really high levels, the stat numbers are also really high. As such, a variable of 20 doesn't matter nearly as much as it did when you had a lower level and lower stats. At higher levels, you'll still do massive damage, and a change of 20 in that attack won't really matter at all. Essentially, I'd just like it if the lower levels depended as much on pure stats as the higher levels. Chance is still there of course, and at the higher levels I really don't even mind that much, but it's not the determining factor. Yes, if things ALWAYS hit exactly where the average SHOULD be, my stats would be the primary thing, but on those lower levels, VERY often I'll get my arse handed to me JUST as often as I hand arse over to the enemy, the SAME enemy in fact. It's THAT sort of thing that drives me nuts. Thing is, the only way to get around it is to get my level significantly higher than the enemy's at that point in the game, and that means FIGHTING them over and over, and in that case it also means reloading my old game over and over.

Now, to address those things you said about console games. How DARE you bring up VERY good points?! :D

Yeah, the enemies tend to be given some sucky moves and some super awesome moves, and then they use the sucky moves most of the time. In the case of really old Japanese RPGs, like FF1, it goes PURELY on a cycle, and it'll always go in order from move to move on the list. In the case of current day RPGs of that style, they tend to be random, but then you start noticing patterns that are JUST consistent enough to make you wonder if there's some simple AI deciding what moves to make... Anyway, a lot of them DO use randomness, and yes I do prefer when some AI is used to determine what move to perform at a time. Still, that'll leave a chunk of the moves they tend to give the baddies completely unused. That just means they'll put more work into the moves and the AI though doesn' it? :D

Anyway, it all comes down to taste. I do enjoy those kinds of RPGs, don't get me wrong, it's just that I hate how near the start victory is very often an issue of randomness when you come up to anything of moderate difficulty. Think of it like how you can't stand random encounters. I respect that opinion because I see your point there for example, it's just something I personally never had a problem with.

It would be a lot easier for me to do this if I knew D&D 3's rule changes... :)

And if you used quotes. They are your friend. They reduce confusion. They are not hard to use.

Odd way of armor working. In every game I played before a d20 based game, armor determined the defense stat (which was used to calculate how much damage you took), but armor is purely for determining hits and misses here.

Yeah... it is strange to have armor not affect how much damage you take when a hit gets through, when you think about it... but it's how D&D has always worked. Armor is just for seeing if you get hit. Of course given how the system works (as in that you miss a lot) that is a vital function... but a bit different.

What WILL affect how much damage you take is protections -- as in, resistances. They generally come from magic items... not to weapons, though (except limited-time from spells). I mean fire resistance, acid, lightning, cold, vocalize (can't be Silenced (ie can't be kept from casting spells, which require speech to work), etc, etc... they are more useful against spells than anything else, but stuff like fire and acid is obviously also useful against some weapons and stuff (like magical arrows of fire...).

Neverwinter, using 3.5 rules, has an interesting system. It's actually very much like FF1. You can learn every single spell in the game, but you have to "equip" them, and there are limited slots for that. Each and every single spell has it's own individual MP, and that MP cost is determined by it's spell "level". So, it's kinda like FF1 in that regard, only with a similar MP system to FF8. Like you said, you "rest" in order to recover HP and get some magic back. Thing is, as far as I can tell, the only punishment for "resting" is that you are vulnerable. No matter, that's probably enough, it's just boring to rest, hence why I like stocking up on potions and ether.

Did you miss the part where I described the D&D spell system? I'm sure that NWN uses the same thing. D&D 3 made changes, big ones, but it would not do something as fundamental as totally changing the spell system. As I said, spells are divided into levels. Now... for Clerics/Druids, when you gain a level all possible spells from that level are automatically added to your spellbook. However, Mages only get a few at best when they level up (fewer as they go up the levels). You have to buy or find spell scrolls and memorize them. D&D says you can fail memorization, but thankfully after BG1 they dropped that incredibly annoying 'feature'... since it destroys the scroll if you fail... Anyway, once learned it's permanantly in your book, in that level, and you have to choose which spells of that level you want to memorize, and you will memorize them when you rest and then can use each memorized spell. Using them removes them from the memorized list until you rest again and re-memorize them... same system in NWN I'm sure.

Now, that ignores one thing -- Wands and Spell Scrolls. Wands are limited-charge magical items that cast spells from within them -- they can be cast at any time. However, they have limited charges which means that it can run out, when you can refill it by selling the wand to a merchant and buying it back. As for spell scrolls, they're the same ones you memorize, but if you want you can cast it straight from the scroll. It destroys the scroll, but you can use it at any time...

Oh, and you CAN'T learn every spell. The number you can learn in your spellbook (for Mage-types; as I said Clerics/Druids WILL learn every possible spell) depends on your Intelligence. For instance, a 16 Intelligence allows for, I think, 15 spells per level, and a 17 allows for 18... but, I believe you can remove spells from the book if you don't like them and put in new ones. You couldn't in BG1 or 2, but they added it in BG2's expansion so I assume NWN has that feature too.

And yes, the only punishment for resting is that you are vulnerable to enemy attack. You do it a lot to get back your healing spells in party-based games. In NWN it's just you so it's a bit different, but anyone with magic will still need to do it a lot... especially if you like to cast spells because resting is the only way to get them back. :) Rest doesn't heal you hugely, but it restores your healing spells, which is far more important... and unlike trying to survive on healing scrolls or something (healing potions, while useful, are limited in supply and drain your money supplies... and anyway, in BGII you're really strong and normal healing potions aren't too useful and super healing potions are in very limited supply.)

Oh, and I forgot one more very important thing. Skills! By that I mean the special abilities your character gets. I don't know if NWN has them but I bet it does... in both BG games your main character gets them. They work just like spells in practice (restored by sleeping) but you can't choose them... they just come, based on your stats and alignment I think. You'll also get multiples of the same thing. Oh, and some classes have this as well. For instance, all Rangers will get a whole lot of Charm Animal abilities in their special abilities area... like, 6-8 of them by level 17...

Oh, and ANOTHER thing. :) Some items and abilities are once-per-day. These can be used once each game-day, and won't be brought back by a single rest unless it goes into the next day. These are generally abilities gotten from objects you are carrying.

As far as critical hits, it's the NORMAL way of doing critical hits. Multiply whatever damage the attack would have done by 2. Some weapons in a few games did it a little differently, like one weapon that did 4x damage on a critical.

I don't know how much the bonus is for criticals...

Then again, I think that's one of the main differences between d20 and Japanese RPGs. d20 uses a bunch of whole numbers and nothing but. However, the average Japanese RPG uses percentages for just about everything. So, rather than something like "defense is 18, so you have to get a 19 or higher in order to hit", it's more like "evasion is 10%" (that's dodge rate, defense, as it SHOULD be , is how much damage you take, not the chance of damage), which means if you have 100% accuracy, you will hit 90% of the time. Again, this still puts some chance in there, but it doesn't make itself so very apparent.

If they even go as far as to TELL you those numbers... more often it just seems that criticals come randomly, with no explanation of why. Same with misses. It hides the numbers... they are still almost as important, but the games hide them behind a simpler shell. I'd rather it was more obvious. D&D's way of doing things is better.

As for defence... I don't know. Having it reduce damage instead of checking to see if you fully block attacks or completely fail does seem more normal, but better? I don't know, overall they're probably pretty close...

And honestly, how do magic bracers block swords hitting my chest? :) I'd say it's easier to believe that they either magically block it or not. :D (Magic Bracers of Defence AC4 or less are very nice and even give Mages negative ACs! :)) It does seem like a strange system, but it works and it probably averages to being not too different (in how much damage you take) than it would be the other way, I bet...

Here's the thing. When, as you have put it, I miss as much as I hit, I feel very put off. A slight adjustment in chance and I've hit every time, or another slight adjustment of pure chance and I've missed every time. Sure, the AVERAGE means I'll do as my stats say I should more often than not, but a single battle won't hit that average perfectly, and if there's only a few, none of the battles may be near that average.

With non-warrior characters you'll probably miss more than you hit... same for anyone against a enemy who is higher level than you are... but that's how D&D is. And when you think about it it's much more realistic -- in real combat you don't hit them every time! You'll miss (or just hit the armor without damage) a lot! And as I said, pure chance has little sway here. Their armor class, and your to-hit, are far, far more important. Oh, sure, you will get some lucky hits, but when combined with unlucky misses it easily balances out. The most important part isn't the random factor, but your stats. By far.

I played through BGII and I can't remember many times when I was hoping any one specific hit hit or I'd die. Oh, sure, I died many times (aided by how if your main character is killed it's game over... not so for the rest of the party...), but it never balanced on any specific hit, so the fact that dice rolls meant sometimes I missed didn't matter much. They probably miss more, given my AC... :)

Anyway, I never really had a problem with anything else that d20 does. Not sure why you would bring it up. Really, everything else about the system is pretty fun, like the ability to customize a character as it develops rather than juse at the start. Multiclassing is fun too.

Multiclassing or Dual Classing? :) Very different things. Dual is only for Humans... I don't like it much, because it means permanantly giving up the class you had for a new one (and you won't be able to use your original classes abilities you had gotten until you match that level in your new class). But multiclassing (for all nonhuman races) is also problematic... fun to be, but you gain levels half as fast because your XP is split between two classes! You'll be level 13/13 when the rest of your party is 17, for instance.

As you said, you haven't played a 3rd edition game yet, so I'll explain some things to you about that now from my own experience. Yes, you can upgrade your stats, your BASE stats, on level up, without using items or equipment. Not EVERY level gives you a stat increase, like in Japanese RPGs. Generally, you'll level up and depending on the level, you'll get whatever you are supposed to get for it. For example, you may get the chance to learn a new feat or two, or increase various special abilities like Persuasion. WITH that, is the occasional chance to boost your base stats themselves. On some levels, you get 1 or 2 points you can use to boost a base stat permanently. Now, I assume in D&D, it's a random roll to determine where these points go, but in Neverwinter Nights, just like in assigning the starting stats on a character, you are allowed to pick and choose yourself. I am SO glad for that because, again, I like to be in control. Yes, it IS a control issue .

Well, I played the demo of NWN, but that was so short that it barely counts and I don't think I used magic...

Oh, and I am SURE that it's not a Third Edition feature to allow anyone to gain stat ups in the main 6 categories. That just isn't something they would do in D&D... I bet it's more like Torment and they have some kind of story explanation (told or inferred).

There are a few points in BGII where you can have a stat permantantly LOWERED (and, indeed, MUST do that two or three times), but it's impossible to increase them (except by items, which only work as long as they are equipped).

Oh, levelling up... what you get depends wholly on your class. And level -- you get much more early on than later. For instance, your weapons proficiencies are set by 8th or 9th level in many classes... after that you won't get any more for Mages, for instance, so you have to be careful about which ones you choose (since if you use a weapon you aren't proficient in you get a damage penalty and maybe also a to-hit penalty)...

Oh, and you get very little choices in levelups. Oh, you can choose weapon proficencies if it's a rare levelup where you get one, and if you're a theif-type you can choose which (theif) abilities to distribute points among... and if it's Torment (or, if you are correct, NWN) you can choose which stat to put a point into... but other than that, all you can do is look and see what you got. Oh, that's a important point -- did you know that the number of HP you get is NOT set (that is, until double-digit levels, when it drops to 1-3)? It's smart to save right before you level up so you can load it and get the level again until you get the best possible health up... :) But other than that all you do is look to see what your spell additions were (set by intelligence and level), or your to-hit bonus (that lowers it, in 2.5)/resistances/protection reductions are, etc...

Feats. They existed before, but 3rd Edition greatly increased their position and formalized them I think... unless that's just KOTOR? But I know that 3rd Edition did do changes for Skills and Feats. In 2nd Edition you don't gain stuff like that on level-ups... nothing you can choose anyway. Those few skills you get based on your class (or your position as the main character) aren't something you get a choice in.

KOTOR, so you know, uses MP, well it's FP actually (Force Points). All the spells you have are permanently learned. Force power regenerates over time.

That would fit the way we know Star Wars to work better than a D&D-style memorization system, certainly... it's how I'd expect the magic system's use to work.

Let me explain what I meant about "defeating a key part of the system". What I mean is that when you get to really high levels, the stat numbers are also really high. As such, a variable of 20 doesn't matter nearly as much as it did when you had a lower level and lower stats. At higher levels, you'll still do massive damage, and a change of 20 in that attack won't really matter at all. Essentially, I'd just like it if the lower levels depended as much on pure stats as the higher levels. Chance is still there of course, and at the higher levels I really don't even mind that much, but it's not the determining factor. Yes, if things ALWAYS hit exactly where the average SHOULD be, my stats would be the primary thing, but on those lower levels, VERY often I'll get my arse handed to me JUST as often as I hand arse over to the enemy, the SAME enemy in fact. It's THAT sort of thing that drives me nuts. Thing is, the only way to get around it is to get my level significantly higher than the enemy's at that point in the game, and that means FIGHTING them over and over, and in that case it also means reloading my old game over and over.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what your complaint is here... the only difference I can think of between low and high levels is your numbers. As in at high levels you have a better chance of succeeding on those checks. Why is the fact that at lower levels you have less of a chance of success so bad? Why does it change at high levels to you? Oh, and which stat numbers do you mean... like, resistances? In D&D2 resistances like fire and acid come only from items. The stuff affected by level-up is the saving throws and THAC0, really. Now, I'm assuming that you mean saving throws -- that is, your chance of resisting magic, etc. Those are values that start low and grow as you progress. So at low levels you'll be caught in Web most of the time and will almost never resist a spell but higher you have fair chances of doing that... but I don't see your complaint. I mean, sure, at low levels you CAN resist. But it's rare, as it should be... if it happens it's more anomalous. And at high levels it can be the other way around. As it should be. I don't see your problem... you seem to be complaining that at low levels you can fail, or something, but don't mind at high levels because you almost always succed? What, do you not like the whole idea of being hit by spells? I'm honestly confused.

As for something failing half the time and succeeding the other half... um, on averages, shouldn't it work out exactly that way? If you lose to an enemy and later win then you are on some kind of par... why is it so hard to believe that sometimes an attack would succeed and other times fail against the same enemy? It seems perfectly normal to me...

Oh, and when I lose I'd prefer to blame my strategy (and, often, that is the culprit... though which spells the enemy chooses to cast definitely has an effect as well...). :) But NWN has less strategy, I'm sure, because there's only one real party member... Anyway, only rarely can I think of where I could put a lot of blame on some unlucky hit... not that I notice every attack anyway, far too much to do to pay attention to attacks that are happening every six seconds (since in BGII a round is 6 seconds; but that leaves out of course the characters with multiple attacks per round, like most fighter-types...)

Yeah, the enemies tend to be given some sucky moves and some super awesome moves, and then they use the sucky moves most of the time. In the case of really old Japanese RPGs, like FF1, it goes PURELY on a cycle, and it'll always go in order from move to move on the list. In the case of current day RPGs of that style, they tend to be random, but then you start noticing patterns that are JUST consistent enough to make you wonder if there's some simple AI deciding what moves to make... Anyway, a lot of them DO use randomness, and yes I do prefer when some AI is used to determine what move to perform at a time. Still, that'll leave a chunk of the moves they tend to give the baddies completely unused. That just means they'll put more work into the moves and the AI though doesn' it?

You miss my point, kinda. What would be most realistic is if they used what they have available. Now you say 'but if they did I'd NEVER win'! But that's my point exactly. It's really stupid to design it so you only win battles because the enemies are incompetent! D&D doesn't work that way. Okay, so enemies might not always use the best possible spells, but they do use a lot of them, and enough variety that you know that they're using up what they have... at least, I never felt like I was just winning battles because the enemy held back their best moves. Against really strong enemies who you probably should not be fighting yet they don't hold back... defeating one of those Demons took quite a few tries...

Anyway, it all comes down to taste. I do enjoy those kinds of RPGs, don't get me wrong, it's just that I hate how near the start victory is very often an issue of randomness when you come up to anything of moderate difficulty. Think of it like how you can't stand random encounters. I respect that opinion because I see your point there for example, it's just something I personally never had a problem with.

In the BG games anyway I've never felt like randomness has decided the battles. Oh, once in a while you'll die and not know why and blame unlucky hits, but that hardly decides the course of the game... when that happens I know that something went wrong (like not paying attention to my main character's health...). Luck has a place, but strategy and skills have a bigger one by far. Even in the beginning... though it's been a long time now since I played as a level 1 D&D character (that would be the start of Torment... which I played several years ago...). :)

Actually, the quote system is hard to use, a whole lot of copying and pasting that I just don't want to do. :D

You know what I'm talking about most of the time though so I really don't need to quote do I?

Anyway, regarding NWN, it's NOT just one player. You are INTENDED to party up with other people online to play the game, so you can have a standard size party, but everyone is a human rather than just one human controlling everyone. The last expansion's campaign, sadly, doesn't allow this outside of a hack, which means you are right about that one. Thing is, you really need to make sure you can trust whoever you drag in, because something like this really requires some decent communication and friendship to work.

Here's something I actually DO have to quote (I'll never quote each and every time, I figure the other person has a good enough memory to know what they have said before and all I have to do is make sure they know what I'm responding to, and that above paragraph, it should be obvious what I'm responding to).

You miss my point, kinda. What would be most realistic is if they used what they have available. Now you say 'but if they did I'd NEVER win'! But that's my point exactly. It's really stupid to design it so you only win battles because the enemies are incompetent! D&D doesn't work that way. Okay, so enemies might not always use the best possible spells, but they do use a lot of them, and enough variety that you know that they're using up what they have... at least, I never felt like I was just winning battles because the enemy held back their best moves. Against really strong enemies who you probably should not be fighting yet they don't hold back... defeating one of those Demons took quite a few tries...

No, I wouldn't say that. I AGREED with you and we WERE talking about the same thing. Yes, I DO agree that the enemies should use better strategies. I agree that their move sets should either be altered so that all the moves are equally good, or the AI should be improved so the enemy knows exactly what move to use in a given situation. Some Japanese RPGs do do this, but not enough really. I agree with you here.

About stats, you are telling me my HP is RANDOMLY GENERATED?! Arg! *destroys a galaxy* You see? This is what I hate right here. They KNOW I'm just going to reload over and over if I know that until I get the best bonus I can, so why, OH WHY, would they even BOTHER with such an assinine system? It's just ANNOYING, not fun. It's like the stats in FF4 actually, and there's a reason they didn't do that at all after that game. Rather, they came up with a different system which actually depends on the player's skills to determine that instead of "DICE ROLL!". In FF6 and FF8, they have various items that give "stat bonuses" to the character if they are equipped when that character levels up. That way, a character can be in control of stat bonuses to a degree, all depending on how many of these special things they found. In FF6, it's esper bonuses. If you want a fast character, equip the Esper Odin around level up, and if you want more HP, equip Bahamut. It's all fixed so you never have to deal with the annoyance of the random element on level up. FF8 used the Guardian Forces which could learn special stat upgrade abilities that you could equip near level up.

Look, in the end, I care more about having fun than the game trying to be realistic. I know I know, if me and the enemy are evenly matched in stats, there really is a chance it could go either way. However, I don't like that chance being taken out of MY hands and placed in that of dice. I prefer me, totally me, to be responsible for how I do. When I am forced to sorta sit back and watch while the random throws determine the outcome of battle, I get annoyed.

Now then, you comment on how you still don't understand what I mean by defeating the system later on in the game. Lemme put it this way. In early levels, when your attack and defense is like 9 or 10 max, a variable of 20 makes all the difference in the world. Whatever you do, it could be anything from totally awesome attack to the enemy, or complete failure. However, once you reach level "awesome", your stats are near the hundreds for everything, a variable of 20 has very little effect. It's still THERE, but it's been delegated to a much smaller roll. As a result, stats really DO determine the winner and in an even match, unless your strategies are better, both you and the opponent will die at about the same time. In any d20 based game, I always look forward to my stats finally being able to make the roll of 20 take a back seat to pure strategy, stats, and moves.

Again, it's obvious you enjoy it. Don't take this as a "it's obvious you enjoy... TEH SUCK!1!" statement. I'm not saying you have bad tastes, just that mine are different. A VERY similar thing to this complaint of mine is yours against random battles. I don't really mind them at all, but you have a huge problem with them. I don't take it that you have better tastes than me, just different. I myself just don't enjoy, as I see it, having the control of the outcomes of battle taken away from me near the start. For you, it's all about playing with probabilities, playing the luck game at that point in the game for all it's worth. I've just never enjoyed that at all. With that, I think we've explained our opinions on this enough to get a good idea of each of our tastes. I believe we can put this to rest now.

Anyway, regarding NWN, it's NOT just one player. You are INTENDED to party up with other people online to play the game, so you can have a standard size party, but everyone is a human rather than just one human controlling everyone. The last expansion's campaign, sadly, doesn't allow this outside of a hack, which means you are right about that one. Thing is, you really need to make sure you can trust whoever you drag in, because something like this really requires some decent communication and friendship to work.

You know exactly what I meant. You control one player. End of story.


No, I wouldn't say that. I AGREED with you and we WERE talking about the same thing. Yes, I DO agree that the enemies should use better strategies. I agree that their move sets should either be altered so that all the moves are equally good, or the AI should be improved so the enemy knows exactly what move to use in a given situation. Some Japanese RPGs do do this, but not enough really. I agree with you here.

I realized what is probably the root of the difference. In D&D, everything follows the SAME RULES. That is, evil mages use the same level system you do. They draw from the same groups of spells per level and have the same rules of casting. Enemy warriors draw from the same pool of proficiencies and weapons. Oh, sure, they might have special equipment, and there is certainly equipment that is either special for a certain character (a few people have 'only I can wear it' armor or weapons in BGI/II, and Torment had character-exclusive weapons or types for most of the people), but it's all the same stuff, with a few exceptions that don't really matter here (Planescape has its own rules and by those, what that game does is fine...). That enemy swordsman is using a sword you could pick up and use if you wished and armor you can do the same with, in virtually all cases. And those mages are using spells you can use back on them. Same rules for everyone. Now, the enemies can be stronger, or special (like Dragons... ack... (to give you a hint, Dragons in D&D are quite tough...)), but it's essentially the same rules.

Console games just do not do that. They have enemies with lists of abilities and, it seems inexaustible magic points. So you have to come up with a stupid reason for why they don't just crush you... and they have patterns. Lame, but necessary given the way it works in those games.

About stats, you are telling me my HP is RANDOMLY GENERATED?! Arg! *destroys a galaxy* You see? This is what I hate right here. They KNOW I'm just going to reload over and over if I know that until I get the best bonus I can, so why, OH WHY, would they even BOTHER with such an assinine system? It's just ANNOYING, not fun. It's like the stats in FF4 actually, and there's a reason they didn't do that at all after that game. Rather, they came up with a different system which actually depends on the player's skills to determine that instead of "DICE ROLL!". In FF6 and FF8, they have various items that give "stat bonuses" to the character if they are equipped when that character levels up. That way, a character can be in control of stat bonuses to a degree, all depending on how many of these special things they found. In FF6, it's esper bonuses. If you want a fast character, equip the Esper Odin around level up, and if you want more HP, equip Bahamut. It's all fixed so you never have to deal with the annoyance of the random element on level up. FF8 used the Guardian Forces which could learn special stat upgrade abilities that you could equip near level up.

Randomly generated within boudaries set by what level you are, your class, and probably your constitution (since that sets your base HP). You get most all your health before somewhere around 8th to 10th level; after that point you just get 1 or 3 HP a turn, depending on class (more for warrior-types, less for mage-types). But for a 'starting at level one' D&D game, level 10 or so is a point you might be at at the very end, so it matters in such a game...

Now, I didn't do that 'save before levelup' thing much, as it seems kinda cheap, but you CAN if you want. It's not a game-changing difference, but with a few more HP you can have something advantage...

As I said, it is a random variable but like everything else set numbers have a big influence. Your class is vital here, as warriors WILL have more HP than most all mages. Same with the Constitution stat. That is hugely influential to how much HP you can get. The die roll decides the exact number, but your warriors will have a lot more HP than your mages... that's for sure. That is unless you stupidly created a warrior with a super-low constitution and your mages is really high...

Oh, and as I explained, D&D is full of items that give you stat bonuses. Before the end of Baldur's Gate II I had one belt of strength 21, one gloves of strength 18, a gloves of dexterity 18, and a gloves of charisma 18... nice items. :) Oh, and I've also gotten items that do such things as adding some set number of HP (though not many). And resistances (fire resistance, magic resistance, etc, that are added, as I said, also by items you equip) are percents... in D&D2.5 anyway... they stack too, so if you have a bunch of fire-resistance stuff you could have 50% or more chance of resisting it...

Oh, that explains why D&D uses a 'chance of resistance' instead of 'rate of depracation of the attack'. Dice. Do you want to do math every attack, to figure out what percent that roll of 12 reduces his attack of 15? I don't think so! :)

Now then, you comment on how you still don't understand what I mean by defeating the system later on in the game. Lemme put it this way. In early levels, when your attack and defense is like 9 or 10 max, a variable of 20 makes all the difference in the world. Whatever you do, it could be anything from totally awesome attack to the enemy, or complete failure. However, once you reach level "awesome", your stats are near the hundreds for everything, a variable of 20 has very little effect. It's still THERE, but it's been delegated to a much smaller roll. As a result, stats really DO determine the winner and in an even match, unless your strategies are better, both you and the opponent will die at about the same time. In any d20 based game, I always look forward to my stats finally being able to make the roll of 20 take a back seat to pure strategy, stats, and moves.

Umm... but that's exactly as it should be! No system is being "broken". It's working perfectly. When you're low level and your resistances are low, you should be failing at least as often as you succeed a resistance of, say, 9 (assuming it's a scale of 1-20)! So you fail half the time and succeed the other half. So? That's EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE! Just like how when you're high level making the throws most of the time is exactly as it should be. Your stats don't become more of a factor as they get higher! They ARE the factor. That 9 means you SHOULD be missing throws a lot and a 18 means you SHOULDN'T. I don't see why that concept is so hard to grasp, and it's why it sounds more like you're complaining about the concept of being able to miss throws than anything else.

I'd say that saving throws are one of the biggest things you get as you level up. Oh, magic is probably the biggest one, followed by HP through about your 10th level, but saving throws are after that (and keep improving even after your HP increase rate has dropped off)... given that even a super-amazing level 20 warrior has 'only' maybe 120HP, and a level 15 maybe 105 or something (at a 3 per level increase), the saving throws are probably a proportionally bigger difference between the two..

Look, in the end, I care more about having fun than the game trying to be realistic. I know I know, if me and the enemy are evenly matched in stats, there really is a chance it could go either way. However, I don't like that chance being taken out of MY hands and placed in that of dice. I prefer me, totally me, to be responsible for how I do. When I am forced to sorta sit back and watch while the random throws determine the outcome of battle, I get annoyed.

It is almost never just you. Saving throws in concept are not significantly different than something based on a percent, if that percent is a chance of success or failure... if it's a hard 'this is the percent damage is lowered by' percent that's different, but I'd bet that that's by far the less common use of them...

D&D just makes more use of random factors. Or, more precisely, makes it more obvious. I mean, console RPGs have all kinds of random factors! But the games hide them, for the most part... D&D doesn't. You seem to have a problem with that.

For instance, I'd bet that in console RPGs you don't always get the same level up bonuses every time you level up... but unlike D&D they don't explain themselves. You seem to prefer that they hide those factors... I take that as a bad thing. I'd like to know why it is that I get a level-up reward of whatever I got! Console RPGs don't tend to do that, while in D&D you can look up the rules and see exactly why (and what) your level-up rewards are and their exact meanings. Better.

Again, it's obvious you enjoy it. Don't take this as a "it's obvious you enjoy... TEH SUCK!1!" statement. I'm not saying you have bad tastes, just that mine are different. A VERY similar thing to this complaint of mine is yours against random battles. I don't really mind them at all, but you have a huge problem with them. I don't take it that you have better tastes than me, just different. I myself just don't enjoy, as I see it, having the control of the outcomes of battle taken away from me near the start. For you, it's all about playing with probabilities, playing the luck game at that point in the game for all it's worth. I've just never enjoyed that at all. With that, I think we've explained our opinions on this enough to get a good idea of each of our tastes. I believe we can put this to rest now.

I've never seen D&D as a game based on luck above all and I never will. As I have detailed, I think that that assertion is completely wrong... luck is a factor, but it is by no means the prevailing one and it isn't some super-more-important one like you portray it as. As I said, they just put all the details out for you to see.

As for random battles, note how now that I've put good amounts of time into random-combat RPGs my thinking is a bit different... as I've said for a while now, where it gets really bad isn't just normal random combat but when I don't know where I should be going (because of maze, puzzle, whatever). Why? Because you're forced to fight an unending stream of battles while you wander around lost. That is not fun. And while in BG enemies DO spawn randomly on the map (in areas you aren't in at the moment), it happens slowly and infrequently and usually when you go to another map and back. You do just a bit of extra fighting while wandering around confused.

Actually, yes, in console RPGs, your stats ARE set in stone on level up. The exception is FFIV. Nothing is hidden from you actually, and no I'm not trying to say they should be. Everything about how the stats work is right there once you figure it out.

Anyway, I see your point, but you really seem to actually be getting upset at me here. I never meant to upset you, just make my opinion clear. I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong here, so try not to get so defensive.

About the multiplayer thing, actually no, I didn't know that's what you meant. I really did think you were trying to say that in effect you only ever have one real party member, from the way you were talking about a lack of strategy anyway. Sorry if I offended you.

Anyway, about the ways enemies behave in Japanese RPGs, yes I noticed that too. There really is no explanation for why the enemies work on a totally different system than the characters, but it works out well and I just tend to ignore the fact that the enemies tend to have MUCH higher HP yet MUCH lower defense.

Look, as I said, we obviously have different tastes. I know that in your opinion, having a better chance of success on level ups is the perfect reward, but I don't like playing the odds. For me, when low level, and half the time I'm dying and the other half completely succeeding, it's like I'm actually floating around levels and not really set in place. I know you enjoy playing with odds and statistics. I just don't. Let's just leave it at that. PLEASE do NOT take this the wrong way.

Anyway, I see your point, but you really seem to actually be getting upset at me here. I never meant to upset you, just make my opinion clear. I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong here, so try not to get so defensive.

No, I'm not any more upset with you than I was with the first post... then I was somewhat, because I really love D&D...

Actually, yes, in console RPGs, your stats ARE set in stone on level up. The exception is FFIV. Nothing is hidden from you actually, and no I'm not trying to say they should be. Everything about how the stats work is right there once you figure it out.

So every time you play a console RPG all of your characters will be the same at each level (for games where you can't customize your character's progression, which is the vast majority of them)?

I wouldn't know for sure, but that seems improbable... but either way, I'd still definitely say that console RPGs hide stuff from you more.

About the multiplayer thing, actually no, I didn't know that's what you meant. I really did think you were trying to say that in effect you only ever have one real party member, from the way you were talking about a lack of strategy anyway. Sorry if I offended you.

AI hirelings also don't count. They are not characters you control to a meaningful degree. I've said both of those things so many times before I didn't think I had to again...

Anyway, about the ways enemies behave in Japanese RPGs, yes I noticed that too. There really is no explanation for why the enemies work on a totally different system than the characters, but it works out well and I just tend to ignore the fact that the enemies tend to have MUCH higher HP yet MUCH lower defense.


But it's far more accurate to have it so sometimes you succeed and other times you fail! Sure, low level characters shouldn't consistently be above their level, but they aren't. And it's far more unrealistic (as in by rules that would make sense for the universe the game creates) for a low-level character to ALWAYS do badly than it is for some of the time for them to succeed.

And as I described, there is no other way to have numerous spells be at all workable... 'Web' is just one of many, many examples that if they had to follow hard rules (instead of 'chance of success', 'web will hit if your magic resistance is below a X') would be stupid. Console RPGs seem to deal with this by not having spells like D&D has (the most common response, I'd have to say...) or other such things... I have never played a console RPG with anywhere close to as good a magic selection as D&D. Nowhere near.

Look, as I said, we obviously have different tastes. I know that in your opinion, having a better chance of success on level ups is the perfect reward, but I don't like playing the odds. For me, when low level, and half the time I'm dying and the other half completely succeeding, it's like I'm actually floating around levels and not really set in place. I know you enjoy playing with odds and statistics. I just don't. Let's just leave it at that. PLEASE do NOT take this the wrong way.

As you can tell your complaints about 'odds' just don't make any sense at all to me. Do you hate boardgames too, or something?

I don't HATE them at all. You are being too sensitive. I'm listing my complaints about one issue. D&D is not a perfect world and I just take issues with a few aspects of it. I know they are core aspects, but oh well, just let it be.

Oh by the way, about Japanese RPG stats, YES, they ARE going to be exactly the same, not randomly generated, at each level. If you write down the stats when your character is level 10, start over, and get BACK to level 10, they will be EXACTLY the same. It's not improbable because the stats aren't randomly generated. They are all programmed in very specifically from the start and a set in stone increase is then programmed in. Maybe they'll program each and every level specifically, or maybe it'll be a formula, but the formula won't use any random numbers, likely just "increase HP by 10% of current hp each level" or something else like that. If the starting HP is fixed, then each proceeding level's HP, with a formula like the one I gave, will ALSO be fixed in place. There ARE exceptions of course. While in FF6, Relm's stats can be perfectly predicted once you learn them, in FF4, the stats really are somewhat random. It's rather annoying too, because sometimes a few stats will actually go DOWN a bit on level up.

Regarding the party thing, I really wasn't talking about henchmen. I thought you really did mean you can't have a party at all outside henchmen, and so I was reminding you of other human members who you have to talk to and develop battle strats with yourself, which plays EXACTLY like D&D actually doesn't it?

I wouldn't say it's FAR more accurate to have the occasional success. If you have a flea battle a train, the flea will never ever win ever. If you have a guy with a machine gun battle a guy with a sword, the guy with the gun will ALWAYS win, every single frickin' time. However, I don't really pay attention to these things.

Look, just to make it clear, I DID enjoy Neverwinter Nights and KOTOR. I really had a fun time. I just have a few issues with some aspects of the game. Now, honestly I don't see why it's a big deal to you that I have these problems. I'll never understand why you have such issues with Majora's Mask, but I just said "to each their own" and left it at that. Perhaps you should do the same here.

I wouldn't say it's FAR more accurate to have the occasional success. If you have a flea battle a train, the flea will never ever win ever. If you have a guy with a machine gun battle a guy with a sword, the guy with the gun will ALWAYS win, every single frickin' time. However, I don't really pay attention to these things.

He'd lose if the guy with the sword started next to him, or if he had astonishingly bad aim or something... :D

It's like the 'Phalanx Destroys a Battleship' thing that you are describing, it seems. That is, the flaw where once in a while in Civilization I a Phalanx would win when a Battleship attacked it... Civ 2 dealt with that by adding firepower. But I don't see how that directly relates to this... unlike those cases, as I've said, this is D&D. While differences between levels are quite noticable, it isn't SO much that it's impossible to concieve of how a lower level person could ever win. I'd say the opposite, actually... and it should be that way -- hard, but possible if done well, to win against a superior opponent.

Look, just to make it clear, I DID enjoy Neverwinter Nights and KOTOR. I really had a fun time. I just have a few issues with some aspects of the game. Now, honestly I don't see why it's a big deal to you that I have these problems. I'll never understand why you have such issues with Majora's Mask, but I just said "to each their own" and left it at that. Perhaps you should do the same here.

NWN is, by all accounts, a poor excuse for a D&D game and seems to be highly criticized for having an awful single player campaign... so unless you've played the supposedly better expansions, I wouldn't take that (game) to mean a whole lot... :)

Regarding the party thing, I really wasn't talking about henchmen. I thought you really did mean you can't have a party at all outside henchmen, and so I was reminding you of other human members who you have to talk to and develop battle strats with yourself, which plays EXACTLY like D&D actually doesn't it?

But then why do you make a difference between henchmen and other PCs controlled by others? Oh, sure, there are differences, but... neither group is controlled by you. That's the point.

Oh by the way, about Japanese RPG stats, YES, they ARE going to be exactly the same, not randomly generated, at each level. If you write down the stats when your character is level 10, start over, and get BACK to level 10, they will be EXACTLY the same. It's not improbable because the stats aren't randomly generated. They are all programmed in very specifically from the start and a set in stone increase is then programmed in. Maybe they'll program each and every level specifically, or maybe it'll be a formula, but the formula won't use any random numbers, likely just "increase HP by 10% of current hp each level" or something else like that. If the starting HP is fixed, then each proceeding level's HP, with a formula like the one I gave, will ALSO be fixed in place. There ARE exceptions of course. While in FF6, Relm's stats can be perfectly predicted once you learn them, in FF4, the stats really are somewhat random. It's rather annoying too, because sometimes a few stats will actually go DOWN a bit on level up.

See, when I read that, I think 'that's too bad'... always being the same is NOT a good thing! I'd rather have an element of chance. That is, when it's explained. As I said, I always get the impression from Japanese RPGs that they're not telling me everything... that some stuff seems 'hidden' or hard to figure out. I don't like that. Oh, sure, I can't calculate how much damage I'm supposed to be doing on average in my head, but I love that they tell you the whole formula. Console RPGs seem designed to not tell you everything you want to know... I like more clarity. And as for dice, it's a bit annoying when you don't get as much HP as you wish you did, but I accept that too... I mean, it'd hardly be realistic to have everyone who looks similar (eg. same class) to always gain the same amount of health per level!

And as I said D&D has more things to worry about than just one party of heroes in one game, like is true in a console title.

Oh, and as you say, when console RPGs have random factors they are, as I've said many times, under-explained as a rule. You admit that at least...

I just played through the FFVIII demo for PC. Ignoring the pitifully low-res 2d backgrounds (incredibly ugly on a PC!), it sure doesn't seem to ME like the game gives you any reason why you do the particular amount of damage you do! You don't always do the same damage with the same attack against the same enemy, you know... how do you explain that?

I don't HATE them at all. You are being too sensitive. I'm listing my complaints about one issue. D&D is not a perfect world and I just take issues with a few aspects of it. I know they are core aspects, but oh well, just let it be.

My favorite board game is probably Hero Quest... fun fantasy/"rpg" board game I've had for a long time. And it, like most of the good boardgames I've played, uses dice... complaining about that is just stupid, I think.

Menubased combat I've already discussed. As for MM, hmm... the heart of the matter is probably simply that I like to take games slowly and that game doesn't allow for that.

Loose if the guy with the sword started next to him? Um, no? The guy with the sword would still be shot before he could swing. "hiyaaa *bang*... ouch...."

Um, Neverwinter Nights is not a terrible D&D game "by all accounts". Yeesh, a HUGE number of people really love the game. The expression "by all accounts" DOES require ALL accounts to actually be that way for you to be able to say it you know, not just a large number. PA also seemed to love it, and their opinions are ones I usually agree with. My friends and I also enjoyed it. Yes though, the single player campaign included with it IS pretty aweful. It's pretty much this big stereotyped story with the main flaw of too many US RPGs. That flaw, if you ask me, is emphasizing everything WAY too much, like the narrator is literely trying to BASH the supposed deepness emotion and history into your skull with a hammer. The other expansions are nice enough, though honestly when I say it's great, I'm talking about the custom campaigns. You may not play them much, but disregarding a feature as unimportant just because you didn't like it isn't exactly nice. Honestly, it's about the biggest part of it. That's where all the fun comes from. So, if you don't care for custom maps, I suppose that's one thing, but honestly, don't disregard the game as bad for EVERYONE based on something you alone don't like, but is obviuosly VERY popular.

The diff between other players and the "henchmen" is that you can actually strategize with the other humans and they are actually able to think. It's a much fuller experience that way, and it really feels like you are on an adventure with a party, even if you don't control them. I do however believe in the future they should add at least the ABILITY to control multiple characters, fully, at once. Wouldn't be long before fully controllable extra characters are added to custom campaigns.

Just to make it clear, I said from the start a little randomness thrown in for spice is fine. I just don't like it to be dominating. You seem to be really aggressive about this issue. Really, I'm only saying I don't like it when randomness replaces skill, as in the early parts of D&D games.

Now, I know you don't think that's the case, and that's fine. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am however saying that that's how I see it, and all things considered, I think that should be enough. Just let it be.

Regarding FF8, no the actual damage formula itself isn't actually explained, but all you need to do is see what damage you are doing, how much a few stat gains affect it, and then from there you instantly have all you need to draw upon to figure it out yourself. They don't spell it out sure, but it's hardly hidden. There IS randomness to it, but it's very minor, essentially to spice it up a bit. A standard attack at a certain level that averages 100 won't also be doing 200 and 10, it'll always be in the area of 90-110 or so I'd say. Likewise, a critical, while slightly varied, will always be roughly double what a normal attack is. To analyze the formula for a critical hit, in any of these games, all you need to do is remember what the attack value of a normal hit is and do the math.

You mention that having characters that develop exactly the same is boring, and yes, I see exactly what you mean. In a game like FF1, where the stats are exactly LOCKED into place, it IS in fact boring to play with the same party over and over. There are other things sure, but the stats are always going to be about the same. However, my point is really that, rather than resorting to a random element for THAT particular issue, they give YOU control of stat development to solve the issue in a lot of games. Having the control taken away from me, you see, bores me.

Allow me to give you an example of a way to get the stats varied without resorting to randomness. In Final Fantasy 2, there are no levels at all, not in the traditional sense really. No experience points to be found. Rather, everything you do has a direct and almost immediate effect on your stats in near-real time. If you attack, then after the battle, strength increases. If you use magic, then intelligence or wisdom increases. If you use a bow, your archery ability increases. If you TAKE damage, your defense or HP increases. If you dodge an attack, your evasion rate increases (there's another bit of randomness for you, thrown in at just enough of a level to make it fun without removing too much control from the player). Essentially, every single game you characters can be VASTLY different in their stats. However, very little randomness and in the end, it was you (and in part, the attacks of the enemies) that determined your character's abilities. There are penalties mind you. You raise your strength a lot, and your wisdom and intelligence start going down. The drops aren't as big as the raises mind you, so overall you will always be getting stronger, but you'll really need to decide how you want to develop your characters. You can thus custom form your character to be anything from a powerful black mage, a great white mage, a legendary swordsman, or even a jack of all trades as a red mage, though that type of character won't be as good at any of it's individual abilities as a specialist.

Another example is this. I think I've said it before actually. In FF6 and in FF8, the summoned monsters are well, equipable (as crystals, well, it is Final Fantasy, crystals are kinda needed). A large amount have stat bonuses. The maximum limit is, for most of the stats, the number you can get for equipping the best possible stat boost to that character at their starting level and keeping it there until level 99 (or 100 in the case of FF8). This means you can't max out EVERYTHING in one game. That means you have to choose which stats matter most and emphasize them. THAT means that every game will result in different stats.

You see, there are many solutions to this outside randomness.

I just want to make something clear. As much as I've pretty much ridden randomness into the ground, I don't completely HATE it. I just think it has it's place. If I'm in the mood to actually play a game where chance and skill are pretty much equal in determining the flow of things, then I play Mario Party. I also ENJOY Mario Party. I don't pretend if I win that it was totally do to my skill though, I'm just playing to have fun and win the most minigames possible there, and the randomness is there basically TO take the control away from you, and in that sort of game, that's half the point. When I'm in the mood for a game like that, I play it. However, when I want to play a fighting game, randomness must be much more subdued. For example, I generally always select "random level", and sometimes "random character", however, if my character, during battle, randomly started switching abilities, then I wouldn't be able to control them reliably. That's why I avoid Game & Watch. One of that fellow's moves is totally random, and as a result, isn't something I can depend on in a fix. While the other moves it has are nice, and I don't actually need to depend on the random one, in the end I had to decide it made Game & Watch potentially weaker. I go for the sure thing when it comes to my character's moveset. However, at the same time, the items that randomly appear I DEMAND to be random. Hard to really explain it, but I guess it really does just come down to taste.

I guess all I'm saying is we expect different things from our games, SOME different things anyway. You see, when I say I don't like how at the start, the control is kinda taken away from me and given to the dice, you say you don't even see the control being taken away. At the same time, when you say you like to be able to take your time in a game and MM doesn't allow that, I myself am of the opinion that it gives you plenty of time to do stuff and I always found I had plenty of freedom to explore so long as I dedicated my exploring to one area at a time.

It's really not a big deal. I "get over" it easily enough and I DO still enjoy those games. However, I just wanted to vent a bit about the whole thing. Don't really take it personally or anything.

Um, Neverwinter Nights is not a terrible D&D game "by all accounts". Yeesh, a HUGE number of people really love the game. The expression "by all accounts" DOES require ALL accounts to actually be that way for you to be able to say it you know, not just a large number. PA also seemed to love it, and their opinions are ones I usually agree with. My friends and I also enjoyed it. Yes though, the single player campaign included with it IS pretty aweful. It's pretty much this big stereotyped story with the main flaw of too many US RPGs. That flaw, if you ask me, is emphasizing everything WAY too much, like the narrator is literely trying to BASH the supposed deepness emotion and history into your skull with a hammer. The other expansions are nice enough, though honestly when I say it's great, I'm talking about the custom campaigns. You may not play them much, but disregarding a feature as unimportant just because you didn't like it isn't exactly nice. Honestly, it's about the biggest part of it. That's where all the fun comes from. So, if you don't care for custom maps, I suppose that's one thing, but honestly, don't disregard the game as bad for EVERYONE based on something you alone don't like, but is obviuosly VERY popular.


If the story were really typical for a good American RPG, would so many people have complained (who play PC RPGs)? No, I don't think so... the key word there being 'good'... :) By 'all accounts' I meant most all the reviews I had read. And I meant the single player campaign, not the multiplayer. And as I said I wasn't including the expansions (reviews of a game generally don't, after all... :)). And that includes a healthy dose of my own dislike for the game for not having parties... :)

Anyway, the point is that it is NOT regarded as one of the best D&D RPGs. Oh, it's not a bad game, but it is lacking in several ways (poor single player campaign and the graphics (repetitive, I've heard the complaint as...) are the biggest ones...)


The diff between other players and the "henchmen" is that you can actually strategize with the other humans and they are actually able to think. It's a much fuller experience that way, and it really feels like you are on an adventure with a party, even if you don't control them. I do however believe in the future they should add at least the ABILITY to control multiple characters, fully, at once. Wouldn't be long before fully controllable extra characters are added to custom campaigns.


That new PC Bioware RPG they just announced better have parties...


Just to make it clear, I said from the start a little randomness thrown in for spice is fine. I just don't like it to be dominating. You seem to be really aggressive about this issue. Really, I'm only saying I don't like it when randomness replaces skill, as in the early parts of D&D games.

Now, I know you don't think that's the case, and that's fine. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am however saying that that's how I see it, and all things considered, I think that should be enough. Just let it be.

Oh, just say 'oh fine your statement's fine even though I think it's totally wrong'? Umm...

Regarding FF8, no the actual damage formula itself isn't actually explained, but all you need to do is see what damage you are doing, how much a few stat gains affect it, and then from there you instantly have all you need to draw upon to figure it out yourself. They don't spell it out sure, but it's hardly hidden. There IS randomness to it, but it's very minor, essentially to spice it up a bit. A standard attack at a certain level that averages 100 won't also be doing 200 and 10, it'll always be in the area of 90-110 or so I'd say. Likewise, a critical, while slightly varied, will always be roughly double what a normal attack is. To analyze the formula for a critical hit, in any of these games, all you need to do is remember what the attack value of a normal hit is and do the math.

And over the time of a combat I don't see how this is appreciably different from D&D. Battles are long. That 2 balances with a 12 to average 7, same as if it was a 6 and a 8! So it's a bigger range. So?

And as I said D&D tells you all those formulas. And shows damage numbers so if you want to see how much damage you can be doing you could likewise figure it out. Except they give you more of the pieces (though the formula is likely more complex). :)

You mention that having characters that develop exactly the same is boring, and yes, I see exactly what you mean. In a game like FF1, where the stats are exactly LOCKED into place, it IS in fact boring to play with the same party over and over. There are other things sure, but the stats are always going to be about the same. However, my point is really that, rather than resorting to a random element for THAT particular issue, they give YOU control of stat development to solve the issue in a lot of games. Having the control taken away from me, you see, bores me.

Fine. But that could easily be extended (and almost sounds like you mean it to be extended...) to 'and D&D takes that control away'. Which is totally wrong, given how much customizability you get over your characters... yes, most of it is on character creation (another HUGE difference... how PC titles almost always let you customize a character to your choosing (though in BG you only create the main character and get NPCs to join your party as the rest of the characters...) and a console game makes you use the specific one given...). But there are many variables as you progress. More than most any console title, certainly. The stats themselves? Remember, you choose proficiencies and theif abilities directly... and the rest of the stuff is based heavily on your choices in the beginning (the main stats)...



Allow me to give you an example of a way to get the stats varied without resorting to randomness. In Final Fantasy 2, there are no levels at all, not in the traditional sense really. No experience points to be found. Rather, everything you do has a direct and almost immediate effect on your stats in near-real time. If you attack, then after the battle, strength increases. If you use magic, then intelligence or wisdom increases. If you use a bow, your archery ability increases. If you TAKE damage, your defense or HP increases. If you dodge an attack, your evasion rate increases (there's another bit of randomness for you, thrown in at just enough of a level to make it fun without removing too much control from the player). Essentially, every single game you characters can be VASTLY different in their stats. However, very little randomness and in the end, it was you (and in part, the attacks of the enemies) that determined your character's abilities. There are penalties mind you. You raise your strength a lot, and your wisdom and intelligence start going down. The drops aren't as big as the raises mind you, so overall you will always be getting stronger, but you'll really need to decide how you want to develop your characters. You can thus custom form your character to be anything from a powerful black mage, a great white mage, a legendary swordsman, or even a jack of all trades as a red mage, though that type of character won't be as good at any of it's individual abilities as a specialist.


'Use ability X and ability X'es value increases'? I'm familiar with that one, it's used in Quest for Glory... you have no levels, but have a lot of stats and as you do things those values increase (provided you have any points in them; something you have 0 in will never increase). That means lots of throwing rocks at a tree if you want to get good at throwing. :D

Dungeon Siege has an element of that too... though it's very simple and makes the game so, so simple -- you'll improve in whatever spell or weapon you're using, and it'll level up that ability. In lieu of choosing abilities to be more proficient in level-up. So it just works as a way of simplifying the RPG aspects of a simple game (can you guess that that game bored me? :) ).

It's an okay system, but one that was more used in older stuff like QFG... it has issues. Like how to get good at things sometimes it makes you do something over and over... not too much fun...



Another example is this. I think I've said it before actually. In FF6 and in FF8, the summoned monsters are well, equipable (as crystals, well, it is Final Fantasy, crystals are kinda needed). A large amount have stat bonuses. The maximum limit is, for most of the stats, the number you can get for equipping the best possible stat boost to that character at their starting level and keeping it there until level 99 (or 100 in the case of FF8). This means you can't max out EVERYTHING in one game. That means you have to choose which stats matter most and emphasize them. THAT means that every game will result in different stats.

Yes, choice as you progress is definitely good in an RPG. Any good RPG has such things.



I guess all I'm saying is we expect different things from our games, SOME different things anyway. You see, when I say I don't like how at the start, the control is kinda taken away from me and given to the dice, you say you don't even see the control being taken away. At the same time, when you say you like to be able to take your time in a game and MM doesn't allow that, I myself am of the opinion that it gives you plenty of time to do stuff and I always found I had plenty of freedom to explore so long as I dedicated my exploring to one area at a time.


I don't see it as being taken away and don't see how you could see it as returning later... that doesn't make sense, as I said several times before... your logic that 'now that I succeed most of the time it's more based on my stats but when I succeeded less it was based on luck' is just strange. Oh, I do kind of get your opinion that you dislike how when you're at a mid level you'll sometimes succeed and sometimes fail (though I most definitely would never consider that as a bad thing)


My conclusion? I'm sorry that you didn't play more good boardgames like HeroQuest, Dragon Strike, or wargame/strategy titles like RISK or Axis & Allies when you were younger. Great games. (and you can probably guess how they relate to this issue...) I got used to dice deciding combats many years ago... sure, it's random, but why is that a bad thing? As I've said, it's influenced randomness, not totally random stuff. And it adds interest to the game. Again, it'd make these games a lot harder, and, in the overall perspective, less strategic, I think, if they got rid of the random element. LESS strategic by getting rid of randomness? Yes, because those random elements add many things to the games that would be pretty hard to have in otherwise, and allow much more interesting battles that can be done in a much simpler fashion.

Like, Axis & Allies. World War II grand strategy boardgame. My two Infantries invade an island. One defends it. Infantry gets two dice on defence (or is it three?) and one on attack... so the defender actually has a fair chance of winning despite the disadvantage. Now, I'm sure you could come up with some system of hitpoints and set attack numbers, but it'd make it more like Chess -- 'move piece here and win with 3 men, or lose if I have 2' every time. Needless to say that'd lead to a boring game after you play it a few times! Oh, sure, it'd still have strategy for sure (in anticipating your opponents' moves), and I think Chess is certainly one of the great games, but the random element adds more than it detracts. And I'd make a similar case for D&D.

Why are you still debating this? I never intended to convince you you are WRONG, but you really seem to think that's what I'm doing. Let me spell it out for you. I am NOT OB1.

Oh, just say 'oh fine your statement's fine even though I think it's totally wrong'? Umm...
Um, that's exactly my point there. I'm not trying to say you are wrong, or your thinking is wrong, or that I even think your thinking is wrong! I see exactly why you enjoy that stuff, and I don't mean in any way to imply it's stupid or wrong to think it. I know, you're used to OB1 doing stuff like that, but I am not doing that stuff to you here. I really AM saying your opinion is perfectly valid. I myself am ONLY saying why I don't like it. I'm not trying to convince you my opinion is the right one here, or anyone for that matter. I'm just giving my view on it.

Just to make it clear, the average may be 7, but that's not what I get. I'll get a battle where I get nothing but 2's, and then a battle with nothing but 14's. I almost never get a battle that actually mixes everything up perfectly near the start. Later, when the difference really doesn't matter, that doensn't happen any more. Again, I fully understand that you are the sort of person that enjoys playing with variables, the idea of trying to analyze what gives you the best chance of success. I can see how that can be fun, I really can. That's just not what entertains me.

Now, I already explained my view, and I'm not trying to convince you here. I didn't attack your view either, nor am I saying "you can think that" in a demeaning way because I DO respect your opinion. Mine just differs. Let's just leave it at that, okay? I let you think what you will about Zelda despite my being able to enjoy it, so why not let me think what I want about this d20 thing despite your being able to enjoy it?

Just to make it clear, the average may be 7, but that's not what I get. I'll get a battle where I get nothing but 2's, and then a battle with nothing but 14's. I almost never get a battle that actually mixes everything up perfectly near the start. Later, when the difference really doesn't matter, that doensn't happen any more. Again, I fully understand that you are the sort of person that enjoys playing with variables, the idea of trying to analyze what gives you the best chance of success. I can see how that can be fun, I really can. That's just not what entertains me.

I don't pay much attention to how much damage I am doing in a PC RPG at any specific time (obviously in a boardgame you would... :) ). There are many things much more important to be doing during battle, like deciding what to do next, choosing spells, etc... especially in a title like Baldur's Gate. Oh, sure, I could if I wished -- you are constantly pausing to give new orders, and I could spend a lot of time looking up and seeing how much damage I'm doing (the damage is shown in the main text box at the bottom of the screen, where conversations and the like also go, in the BG games; Torment puts it as numbers on the main screen itsself), but why? I know the ranges my people will be hitting in. Now, I will listen for the characters' "I am not doing any damage" speeches, which means I've got to switch weapons or use magic with them because the enemy is impervious to their current weapon, but when I know the range why should I look at the numbers a lot? Anyway, I know how they will perform... my main character will do the most damage (four attacks per turn, two good weapons... lots of damage... :) ), the other Ranger second, etc... sure it has a element of randomness but the set factors -- like, for instance, the number of attacks per turn, as well as proficiencies and the character's Strength -- are a much bigger factor in how much damage they will do overall!

... But maybe that's because BGII starts you at level 7? :D

I'll bet you think that it gives you lots of lows and then lots of highs more because you notice when it does than because it happens all the time. It'd be natural for it to be that way, after all...

Though... I have heard that the most random sets DO have clumping. Like, flipping a coin. You'll get heads five times in a row but over 100 flips it'll be close to fifty each... so some grouping IS natural. But you seem to suggest more than that, which is why I said that I bet you're seeing what you look for, and not all of what is there.

Now, I already explained my view, and I'm not trying to convince you here. I didn't attack your view either, nor am I saying "you can think that" in a demeaning way because I DO respect your opinion. Mine just differs. Let's just leave it at that, okay? I let you think what you will about Zelda despite my being able to enjoy it, so why not let me think what I want about this d20 thing despite your being able to enjoy it?

I see nothing wrong in saying my opinion. But we've discussed this far too many times before to make it worth talking about again.

Actually, I check the damage for each and every attack. I do it real time too. I always have done that. It's important for me to know the results of every single move so I can know exactly how low the enemy's HP is. Just trusting my character to "ballpark" it without looking just isn't my style. I get it from the Japanese RPGs, where I do the same thing. On that note, every Japanese RPG I've played does in fact display damage numbers on every attack, not hide them. So no, I wouldn't say it's a case of "only counting the hits and not the misses". Thanks to snopes, I'm very wary of falling into that trap. My overall performance ACROSS battles just isn't so important to me as my performance in a SINGLE battle. I tend to live in the moment. Of course, that means I am very bad at chess (don't get me wrong, I like chess, I'm just not good at it because I'm not good at thinking ahead, just in the moment, like Solid Snake, which is probably why he becomes the main tool of so many conspiracies...), but I'm very GOOD at those snap decisions that make or break a fight, or at least I think so.

You already said your opinion though, and I said mine, and it's obviuosly just a matter of taste, so why actually go about trying to CONVINCE the other person after that? Don't defend it with "just saying my opinion", you're dwelling on something that I don't want to talk about. I mean no disrespect, but you do tend to have a habit of making a big deal out of nothing. I have a "low level" opinion here. I have a hard time explaning it, but honestly, I think it needs explaining. People can have opinions on things that aren't completely "I will fight to the end because of how totally right I am!" level opinions. The opinions I have on right and wrong and religion are the ones I totally BELIEVE in, but things like this? It's just an "eh, yeah I think that" sort of thing. Not a full mind totally dedicated to it thing. Basically, all I'm asking is that you find why a person thinks something, and if it's a minor issue, and the other person doesn't really want to argue about it, you should just let it go for what it is.