Re: No walk toggle in the game?
Posted: February 12th, 2017, 2:53 am
A well meant, but unintentional non-answer; remember, you are preaching to the choir; [most here that played the original games probably take most of those points as a self-evident]... However, "fun" and "realistic" are both ~highly~ subjective, and I disagree with your "it's just boring and a waste of time to watch your party walk for long, slowly, around a map". I played FO3 mostly walking slowly in the wastes, as far away from a town or any NPC as possible; because both of those are what ruined the game for me.It's one of the many trade-off between "fun" and "realistic". Like when you sleep it takes a couple of seconds, not 8/10 hours. When you drink or eat it's almost instant too. Changing clothes, idem. And we never bother the player with having to pee or take a bath. The same goes with walking, it's just boring and a waste of time to watch your party walk for long, slowly, around a map. So we make it faster. And "walking faster" feels even more unrealistic than "running always", so running it is.
Why is this bad? The player is roleplaying a PC in their life, in their situation; under their [the PC's] hardships... or is that a boring waste of time too? [That is roleplaying]. The whole point is to influence the outcome based on their personal strengths ~and more importantly their personal limitations; and this is taking some of those away.I don't think that's a good idea either, perhaps during Crisis, but not overall. Walking slowly when encumbered just puts the burden on the player,Gizmo wrote:Second off... if the system handled running and walking, it could restrict running to the unencumbered. Grimrock does this... It even restricts climbing ladders if the party is carrying too much baggage.
In Fallout, the player DID often have to choose between hauling additional bullets ~or rockets, or flamer fuel, because hauling all three was impractical --That stuff was heavy. It was an egregious failing of FO3 to make ammo frugality a non-issue by making it all weightless.
The problem with that mindset being in charge of an RPG [thinking of Bethesda here], is they are not making an RPG, they are making an experience simulator, akin to an amusement park ride; very akin to the original WestWorld plot. Where they were selling the wild west experience to people that never forgot it was a theme park. BIG difference between the costumed park guests in Westworld, and the character's in the film Unforgiven; (and a tremendous difference in the quality of the characters ~because of their hardships, and limitations; and humanity). RPGs are more about character limitations than strengths... It's their job to say 'no', far more than yes. But these digital amusement park ride [rpg] like FO3, are only concerned with catering to the idea of the theme experience ~the character is practically in the way. They are making a shooter, and deciding ~for the player, that the player would [obviously ] rather shoot the gun than be bothered with inventory management.
I'm hoping that Torment is not planned as an Planescape experience simulator; rather than offering to play characters that live and survive there.
Did you play Planescape? That's not meant as a slight, it's an honest question. Do you remember the costume he could acquire in the Mortuary, it allowed him to pass indefinitely as a zombie, but running would tear the costume. So to keep it, the PC had to slowly amble about like a zombie. The player was literally roleplaying a PC that was himself roleplaying a zombie, and staying in character to not lose the freedom afforded by the disguise.
Also do you recall that in conversation the PC's limitations often dictated their ability to influence the outcome. There were times when the PC could notice a pickpocket trying to steal from them, and they could choose to try to grab the thief ~but succeed only if agile enough. Thankfully this was not some hamfisted quicktime event requiring fast button mashing [like the bar fights in Witcher 2]. This was often the player not getting their way, because their PC was not physically up to the task.
In conversations with Party members the PC's [personal] insight or acuity would open dialog options ~only if perceptible to them, or if they were capable of convincing the other character to agree. One of the most annoying things I've ever seen an RPG is skill tagged dialog options that are announced even to characters lacking the personal acumen to think of them. IE. [Science] "That was not cardiac arrest, it was caused by a shellfish toxin", [Intelligence] "So you fight the Good Fight with your voice...". Stuff the PC might never be able to say, and perhaps couldn't even read aloud.
Stuff the player doesn't need to know is in the game ~until they are running a PC with the right aptitude for it.
True, and yet this is taking away the basic ability to walk ~instead of run.having to wait longer being half-bored, so the characters can carry the loot. Not fun, and doesn't add that much in term of realism (you should see the weird and creative solutions my PCs in pen&paper games find when I try to bother them with carrying loot, but you can't do that in CRPG).
Wouldn't it seem fitting that the cost of acquiring (and keeping) that gold, is to get it home safe ~despite hardship commensurate to it's weight?
Those weren't suggestions, just notable examples. Grimrock slows the party down when overburdened, and this does actually make some challenges impossible, until they lighten the load.Restricting climbing ladders why not, but it might just lead to micromanagement, climb ladder with half of the loot, deposit it on top, climb down empty, climb up again with the rest of the loot - that's something the party might very well do, and in a novel it would be a line the first time and then nothing, but that is just boring for the player to do, so like going to bathroom we skip it.