The Reason This Game Is So Sloooooooow

[Kipi]

Sorry mate, but this thread isn't about 'not knowing the rules' it's about 'how much these rules stink' - once you've grasped this basic concept I feel sure you will find the simple words I use very easy to grasp.

First of all, basing on your statements and explanations this thread partially seems to be about "not knowing the rules". You claim the rules stink because you don't understand how those works and why those works that way. No offense meant but that's how it is.

Secondly, if you don't like the system don't play the game. D&D is one of the most liked because it's complexity and the range of choice it offers to players but it's simply not for everybody. There are dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of games that works the way you want, like assumes what the player wants to do, so stick with those games instead. We won't hate you for doing that but nobody is going to like you if you come here, throw in facts that does not, in my opinion, follow any logic and refuse to listen to friendly, detailed explanations and answers, and instead you throw in more empty claims and statements, backed with minor name-calling.

So, if you don't like the game then don't play it. It is actually that simple.

[LastDanceSaloon]

"So, if you don't like the game then don't play it. It is actually that simple."

I was wondering when this ol' chestnut would arise.

How am I supposed to know if I like something or not without playing it?

Once I have played it aren't I then in the exactly correct position of being free to flame it.

That response is lazy nonsense, and you know it.


"First of all, basing on your statements and explanations this thread partially seems to be about "not knowing the rules". You claim the rules stink because you don't understand how those works and why those works that way. No offense meant but that's how it is."

You got a quote with reason to go with that statement? Not yet you haven't so I'm affraid I cannot respond, if you want to take the semantics road, feel free, quote me and lets debate how different people interpret differnt words.

[Stworca]

This thread starts looking like a brawl.. Let us start again, and calm a bit down, shall we?
I bet half our the frustration some of us seem to be getting is caused by misunderstandings.
People also make mistakes - like i did with Point-blank shot - and as we all know a rolling snowball eventually turns into an avalanche.

From your first two posts, LDS, i understood that you do not know the rules too well. This is not to say that i've felt that you do not, but you've written them in a way which implied that you don't.

With friendly regards and hopes for a civilized continuation of this thread.
Me.

[Kipi]

"So, if you don't like the game then don't play it. It is actually that simple."

I was wondering when this ol' chestnut would arise.

How am I supposed to know if I like something or not without playing it?

Once I have played it aren't I then in the exactly correct position of being free to flame it.

That response is lazy nonsense, and you know it.

Where did I say you shouldn't even try the game?

What I meant was that after you tried the game you decided that you don't like the system. That's fine, you don't have to keep on playing, and you are definitely allowed to have opinions. But you have to accept the fact that there are people, in this case lots of people, who disagree with you and are ready to state their opinions as well.

"First of all, basing on your statements and explanations this thread partially seems to be about "not knowing the rules". You claim the rules stink because you don't understand how those works and why those works that way. No offense meant but that's how it is."

You got a quote with reason to go with that statement? Not yet you haven't so I'm affraid I cannot respond, if you want to take the semantics road, feel free, quote me and lets debate how different people interpret differnt words.

How about the whole first post?


EDIT: I agree with Stworca, let's keep this discussion civil.

[GawainBS]

I'll indulge you:

1. ToEE is actually the most accurate representation of 3.5 rules, but the game is plagued by many bugs and crashes, which interfere with the actual rules.
I'll call NWN2 a fair second, with more leniency towards the rules, because it intends to "cover up" the turn-based mechanics behind it.
Also, I've heard many good things, combat/rules wise, from D&D Tactics?, but I haven't played it myself.

2. Honestly, I don't know why you enjoy other games more, but I have a feeling you do not much care about details/turn based mechanics. You complain about needing to micromanage your character's movement? As Kipi said, don't blame the system, but look for another one. D&D has that kind of detail. Dragon Age doesn't.
Personally, I loved being able to take advantage of things like flanking and 5ft steps.

Lastly, ToEE is a hard game to like, as it really suffers from bad design. But, knowing the 3.5 rules fairly well certainly helped me out. There are hard, frustrating encounters (the frog, the giant and the bear, indeed), which are probably too high lvl according to the rules. Blame the ToEE, not 3.5. Nevertheless, these encounters are surmountable with reasonable effort. (i.e. one or two reloads.)

[LastDanceSaloon]

"But you have to accept the fact that there are people, in this case lots of people, who disagree with you and are ready to state their opinions as well."

Yes, I believe that was what was happening, though I'm still confused as to why you feel the need to state the obvious.


"1. ToEE is actually the most accurate representation of 3.5 rules, but the game is plagued by many bugs and crashes, which interfere with the actual rules.
I'll call NWN2 a fair second, with more leniency towards the rules, because it intends to "cover up" the turn-based mechanics behind it.
Also, I've heard many good things, combat/rules wise, from D&D Tactics?, but I haven't played it myself."

Indeed, so ToEE does not count as a superior game. Maybe they should have spent less time fussing with minor rules...?

...Like Neverwinter 2 did. Yes, they do start to become superior when they try to ditch the new spasticated rules don't they.

And no, I've not bothered to pick up tactics yet either


"2. Honestly, I don't know why you enjoy other games more, but I have a feeling you do not much care about details/turn based mechanics. You complain about needing to micromanage your character's movement? As Kipi said, don't blame the system, but look for another one. D&D has that kind of detail. Dragon Age doesn't.
Personally, I loved being able to take advantage of things like flanking and 5ft steps."

I love turn based mechanics, again you're just making stuff up - it's the stuff that's been added 'inbetween' the rounds which is crap and the sudden need to waste feats on actions that shouldn't require them to be a 'feat' beyond being a 1st level freeby. Yes I am complaining about UNECESSARILY micro-managing my characters, this is entirely the point, got there at last. And no, D&D 3.5 has this kind of detail, not just blanket D&D.

And you still didn't answer the question - why does a requirement to read a manual in order to perfom basic activities make it a 'better' game? That was the question, not whether you or me enjoy them once we know them.


"these encounters are surmountable with reasonable effort."

I know, I've detailed how I defeated them. The game isn't hard. Nowhere has it been stated the game is hard. The game is annoying and overly time consuming in comparison to the end result. The characters are not functioning in a balanced fashion. The game is a mess from start to finish.

The only reason people even bother trying to defend this game is because, as it says on the box, it's the "First and only game to feature the D&D v3.5 rules set.

So for anyone who actually *likes* the 3.5 rules, I guess this is all they got!

The fact that these people can neither take the hint nor understand why this is the case, then, again, that's gonna be more thier problem than the majority of gamers.

If the game is obsessed with grids then make it a grid game, allow the grids to be shown, then the 'n00b' will very quickly grasp why the hell they are playing a board game rather than a computer game and adjust their mind-set accordingly. Yes, that's a really good direction for RPG computer games to go in (sarcastic). Oh no, they didn't go in that direction did they...

[GawainBS]

1. The bugs from ToEE aren't because they "added needless things". The game's problems are on a whole different level than the rules used. NWN2 certainly had its share of problems and bugs, and that dropped the "needles" stuff. (Yet, surpringly, opponents still hit you in the face when drinking a potion, or when you run away.)
Games don't become unstable because of the rules you use...


2. "Stuff in between rounds"... That's there to add detail and spice. AoO are an obstacle. They represent real challenges. To overcome these, you don't need specific feats, really. Sure, some feats help. There, that's a decision to take.
"Blanket" D&D has this too. It's just meshed and spread out over your and your opponents' turn, which certainly doesn't help gameplay fluidity. (AD&D Spell interruption based on initiative, I'm looking at you.) In Icewind Dale, for example, this stuff happens all the time, yet you didn't complain about it. It's just less visible there.
Have you played Diablo II? Interruption is there as well. Age of Wonders 2 had AoO's too, and I don't see those being a detriment. Jagged Alliance had "Overwatch".
In combat things don't happen in a strict order. Things happen, and people react. That's what 3.5 tries to convene. (And many will agree, it succeeds in that.)

Just to point out that many games add such a mechanic, ToEE is just very vocal about applying them. Most of them don't offer the possibility of preventing such interruption.
Now we're back at the starting point: you don't like 3.5 because it requires too much investment and micromanaging. Fine. Plenty of other rulesets to enjoy then. As far as I've seen, most pay for this by being more shallow.

If I went to the Counterstrike fora and started complaining CS required good reflexes and how unnecessary I thought that was, because I don't want to train those, well, I think I would get much less civil responses than you've got. (At least, our responses were in very legible English. )

[Kipi]

"But you have to accept the fact that there are people, in this case lots of people, who disagree with you and are ready to state their opinions as well."

Yes, I believe that was what was happening, though I'm still confused as to why you feel the need to state the obvious.

I stated that as your posts give me the impression that you are not ready to actually listen our explanations, all you want to do is rant. Clear example of this is you blaming Gawain and Stworca patronising you while they only gave some explanations. If you were willing to actually listen to what others are saying you surely wouldn't go to attacks against person. That's the picture you are giving to us with every and each post you make.

And you still didn't answer the question - why does a requirement to read a manual in order to perfom basic activities make it a 'better' game? That was the question, not whether you or me enjoy them once we know them.

Perhaps it's not directly the requirement of reading manual but instead of liking more complex games which require micromanagement? And usually those games tend to be quite manual-heavy, thus leading to requirement of actually reading the manual.

"these encounters are surmountable with reasonable effort."

I know, I've detailed how I defeated them. The game isn't hard. Nowhere has it been stated the game is hard. The game is annoying and overly time consuming in comparison to the end result. The characters are not functioning in a balanced fashion. The game is a mess from start to finish.

The only reason people even bother trying to defend this game is because, as it says on the box, it's the "First and only game to feature the D&D v3.5 rules set.

Please, even though you are allowed and encouraged to have opinions, don't put words to our mouths we haven't said. In which comment it's stated by me, Gawain or Stworca that we are disagreeing with you only because of that? Nowhere. Or if you think otherwise please give us the quotes which indicates so.

So for anyone who actually *likes* the 3.5 rules, I guess this is all they got!

The fact that these people can neither take the hint nor understand why this is the case, then, again, that's gonna be more thier problem than the majority of gamers.

If the game is obsessed with grids then make it a grid game, allow the grids to be shown, then the 'n00b' will very quickly grasp why the hell they are playing a board game rather than a computer game and adjust their mind-set accordingly. Yes, that's a really good direction for RPG computer games to go in (sarcastic). Oh no, they didn't go in that direction did they...

Again, please stay away from personal attacks. Such things doesn't actually contribute to this discussion nor gives any good picture of you. Such thing as personal attacks, name calling and so on are frowned upon here.

I liked ToEE. But I didn't like it exclusively because of the D&D 3.5 system. There were plenty of other things I liked in the game. So, as you had no way of knowing what each of us likes in the game, don't make assumptions that have very high chance of being wrong and then using those assumptions in personal attacks.




EDIT: Why I suddenly begun feeling Xandax's eyes on my back?

[Monks]

dear original poster lets start out with a few steps in how to comunicate the issue you feel you have. you are naturally allowed to have your own oppinion, however you should not expect everyone to have the same.

1. be precise and clear when stating your problems. dont be afraid to write down the actually problem in itself. if people does not correctly understand what you are writing, it is not their fault. it will be yours. (same goes for the people writing the answers)

2. be polite. you are turning it into a name calling contest, this will make people take you less seriously, and will result in the discussion moving in the wrong dirrection. take notice that most people inhere are replying in order to help you better solve your problem, they are using their free time doing this, so being respectfull towards that would be a good starter.

3. if something in an argument is a matter of opinion, witch means its not factual and therefore not based on either math or simply being very unrealistic. using the counter argument, your wrong because i think something else. will be very unproductive. instead try to explain why you think hes points are invalid, and why you think your points are valid. in these kinds of discussions 1 of you will either end up agreeing with the other person, or you will "agree to disagree". there will be no rights and wrongs in this. therefore rule 2 should be aplied.

[LastDanceSaloon]

Re: Monks

Do you do classes in patronising or does it come naturally?

"1. The bugs from ToEE aren't because they "added needless things". The game's problems are on a whole different level than the rules used. NWN2 certainly had its share of problems and bugs, and that dropped the "needles" stuff. (Yet, surpringly, opponents still hit you in the face when drinking a potion, or when you run away.)
Games don't become unstable because of the rules you use..."

Again gawain, you do not address the point I mentioned but instead just make up a completely seperate point.

The issue I mentioned was TIME. The game was released incomplete because they run out of TIME. They had clearly spent a lot of TIME making sure the attacks of opportunity worked excellently - it's certainly the most noticeably working function in the game. Therefore they must have spent a lot of TIME on this aspect of the game.

Ergo, I suggested they might have used their TIME better. The bugs ARE because they added needless things because adding ANYTHING requires TIME. And the reason it is so bugged is because they ran out of TIME.


"AoO are an obstacle. They represent real challenges."

They do not represent REAL challenges, they represent someone over-thinking and over-analysing what might or might not be realistic situations should a... Half-Orc Wizard... ever come face to face with... a vampire... on the... fourth level of a two thousand year old building full of... walking skeletons.


And going back to the 'but what if' debate:

Dwarfs are very crafty individuals. They like to make all kind of fancy gadgets. Why wouldn't a Dwarf invent a helmet which has a space for a potion to sit with a pipe feeding into the mouth, requiring the fighter to simply chew off the restricter in order to guzzle the potion when and wherer the fighter chooses - instantaneously?

Don't tell me, this would just be silly...

[Kipi]

Re: Monks

Do you do classes in patronising or does it come naturally?

For this comment, which was not even only one in its category, I have reported your behavior. I ask you again, nicely, to stop this kind of behavior.

"1. The bugs from ToEE aren't because they "added needless things". The game's problems are on a whole different level than the rules used. NWN2 certainly had its share of problems and bugs, and that dropped the "needles" stuff. (Yet, surpringly, opponents still hit you in the face when drinking a potion, or when you run away.)
Games don't become unstable because of the rules you use..."

Again gawain, you do not address the point I mentioned but instead just make up a completely seperate point.

The issue I mentioned was TIME. The game was released incomplete because they run out of TIME. They had clearly spent a lot of TIME making sure the attacks of opportunity worked excellently - it's certainly the most noticeably working function in the game. Therefore they must have spent a lot of TIME on this aspect of the game.

How do you know how much time the developers have spent to AoO, or any other feature? Do you perhaps know anyone who has worked with the game? Again you make assumptions with no basings on facts.

If something works excellently it does not automatically mean that lot of time has spent to that aspect. If that was the case then 99% of RPGs would have excellent, if not perfect, story and setting. Alas, that's not case.

Ergo, I suggested they might have used their TIME better. The bugs ARE because they added needless things because adding ANYTHING requires TIME. And the reason it is so bugged is because they ran out of TIME.

What would be the thing the developers should have spent their time? You have to remember, they wanted to use D&D 3.5 system, and for example AoO is quite important part of it in terms of combat tactics.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but basing on your comments the biggest problem with ToEE you have is the D&D 3.5 system? As I said earlier nobody is forcing you to play the game or any game with that system. It's only reasonable that if the developers wants to use such system like 3.5 they implement it as it is, possibly making only slight tweaks and alterations to bend it to the computer world. Leaving things like Attack of Opportunity would be stupid decision as it's part of the core mechanisms.

[LastDanceSaloon]

"As I said earlier nobody is forcing you to play the game or any game with that system."

And nobody is forcing you to talk to me, so why do you persist?

[GawainBS]

As Kipi also pointed out, I replied straight the point, explaining that the shortage of time in the development, in all likeliness, didn't come from implementing an already existing ruleset.

I have never found anything that provoked an AoO to be "overly analyzed". If anything, you seem to have a strange sense of what is "realistic".

[LastDanceSaloon]

"If anything, you seem to have a strange sense of what is "realistic"."

Such as?

[Kipi]

"As I said earlier nobody is forcing you to play the game or any game with that system."

And nobody is forcing you to talk to me, so why do you persist?

1. Because this is forum, where discussion takes place. As long as the discussion is done in civil manner and the rules of the forum are respected
2. I want to learn to understand why you think the way you do. That's the only way we can learn to respect each other, perhaps we can even learn from each other.
3. I want to express my opinion and explain why I don't see things the same way you do.

There you are, three main reasons I keep posting here (or in any other thread that is). Learning from others usually tends to give wider perspective on things, perhaps even make us see things differently than we did before. Honestly, it has been quite difficult to understand from your posts at times what you are really saying, so that's why I have been throwing questions. Your attitude hasn't helped in this regard either.

So, I throw the ball back to you: Either we keep continuing this discussion in civil manner, respecting other point of views and backing our claims with facts as often as it's possible, or we drop this discussion here and now. What do you say?

[GawainBS]

The potion drinking with weapons in hand in the middle of combat and using a bow in melee come to mind.

[LastDanceSaloon]

"or we drop this discussion here and now."

Considering every single one of your posts has contained either reference to my attitude or a suggestion I cease posting, combined with my lack of response to you, would suggest we haven't been having a discussion with which to drop.

Are you attempting to apply for moderator status? When achieved please feel free to dictate my posting behavior. Until then... whatever dude.

[Kipi]

The potion drinking with weapons in hand in the middle of combat and using a bow in melee come to mind.

In addition complaining that no arrow kills with single hit, unless you are shooting some critter with so low HP that the damage one arrow can make is greater.

Sorry LastDanceSaloon, but those three comments make it rather confusing to figure out if whether you want realism or not.

Considering every single one of your posts has contained either reference to my attitude or a suggestion I cease posting, combined with my lack of response to you, would suggest we haven't been having a discussion with which to drop.

Are you attempting to apply for moderator status? When achieved please feel free to dictate my posting behavior. Until then... whatever dude.

Those references are done only because I'm trying to steer you away from problems that may come. And no, I'm not applying to become moderator.

[LastDanceSaloon]

"The potion drinking with weapons in hand in the middle of combat and using a bow in melee come to mind."

Ok, I'll repeat them again.

At the start of the game and for quite a long time into it you are started with a fighter who weilds a sword in one hand and a buckler in the other. A buckler does not require the use of a hand. The hand is free to hold anything the fighter chooses. Why no a ready potion, or two.

Why is this so hard to visualise?

With reguards to bows, the archer takes one round to fire a shot, and at an advanced stage can fire two shots in one round. Ergo, there is no difference in time between his actions and the actions of anyone else on the battlefield. The very fact that it is possible to fire two shots in one round (even excluding haste) suggests that it is more than possible to perform this action without incuring an attack of opportunity.

It doesn't matter what specific actions the archer is doing, it still all happens in one round, exactly the same as for someone swinging a longsword. Swinging a longsword is a slow process, this is an established 'reality' in D&D and yet the longsword weilder suffers no attack of opportunity, but a quick archer does?

And dexterity implies deftness and quickness of bodily movement. would and archer with high dexterity standing next to an ogre with virtually zero dexterity really incur the archer sacrifice an attack of opportunity? I think not. The ToEE description of an ogre: Slow and stupid.

[LastDanceSaloon]

"Leaving things like Attack of Opportunity would be stupid decision as it's part of the core mechanisms."

Ever since 3.5 came into being, attacks of opportunity have been DM optional rules depending on circumstance. It works well for a gridded tabletop game, but is rather more complicated for P&P players - you're going to be using a heck of a lot more erasers up... . And for the computer game industry, do you really think indepth 64 turn rounds are the best way to appeal to the audience necessary to finance a well produced product?

They are not THE core mechanisms, they are add-ons TO the core mechanisms.