As BN has pointed out, taking the stats and skills as defined in the system, they are not at all circumvented by player input when using turn-based combat.
Ok, so if I understand your argument, so long as I don't refer to Agility in SoW as the stat that allows a character to aim, merely as a "general coordination" stat, so long as I play the right word games, it is cool if I have fps aiming based on player skill, and the player decides/character executes divide will be safe and traditionalists will be happy. Cool.
It's not the word games that are important. It's the stats as defined and used in the system.
if your "general coordination" stat does not govern the character's aiming, then yes, allowing the player to aim does not circumvent it.
We're talking about circumvention of stats, the full Oxford dictionary definition of the stat labels does not come into this at all.
Which is why I felt the need to reword the statement in your previous post. If a character stat does not, by the rules of the system, govern a particular aspect, how is it possible for player input in that aspect to circumvent it?
Of course, no stat circumvention does not autoatically make for a good roleplaying system.
Character has a stat specifically for
thinking, it is very low, game allows player to directly affect it, player is awesome at
thinking, character is now decent to good at
thinking- circumvention.
See what I did there?
Yes, how very clever. However, what the player does with their intelligence, is make decisions. I do not see where the character makes decisions based on his intelligence. I see differing options offered to, or various restrictions being placed upon the player's choices, based on the characters Int, which of course, is decided on by the player. But, not actual character decision making. How is this any different from the character "deciding" not to be able to carry over a certain weight? The character "deciding" not to be able to put a bullet between an enemy's eyes from 200 paces? Or any other stat restriction in the game? The player makes decisions within the restrictions of the character's abilities, the character takes the action, with success wholly dependent on his skills/stats.
edit: if you worded your statement in this way - SOME attribute of the player is taken as input and used to replace, partially or fully some faculty that would normally belong to the character were he fully formed - then I'd agree completely. It is which are given over to the player and in what form, that has been the point of discussion. I do see how, in this light, you could ask why it matters so much that the faculty taken from the character should be decision making, not a mixture of decision making and actions, or even purely actions. I even agree that roleplaying, in the general sense, could be just as strong with a different transference of faculties depending on the balance. All along I've been arguing most preferred, maybe even as far as best for certain purposes, but certainly not only viable.
I'm glad you see my point.
I do, though not with wording it in terms of stat circumvention, and have never argued against the viability of different character skill, player skill mixes. Just putting forward points for why I prefer a certain mix.
I'm a damn good FPS player. When I play Deus Ex, I don't really need to up my combat skills, because I can wreck people with poor combat skills and a pistol.
My character sucks at combat, but I don't, so I'm really making my character a pretty good combatant by being a good player.
Your example doesn't work, as the same can be said for TBC. Except that for neither is there usually a "combat" stat. So, my character sucks at aiming, but I'm a master FPS player, so he is now pretty good at aiming, shows actual circumvention.
Your example doesn't work as there are a number of trivial ways to fix it.
Except it does, with some modification, as it was an example relating to a specific game, or type of game that allows that cicumvention. I don't think it was a blanket comment for every kind of real-time game.
For example, the Morrowind way, where the to-hit roll still occurs when you whack a character as in TB. Meaning that you cannot get better than your character, you can only perform equal or less than their character skill level.
I agree that this is not a bad system, in terms of stat circumvention, and have said all along that real-time systems will vary in the degree to which stats can be circumvented. You would agree that in the Morrowind stat system, there is still some circumvention, would you not?
Or you can shift the numbers so that they compensate in other ways.
For example, if you are doing 12 damage a hit and you have a 50% chance to hit per swing, over time that averages out to being equivalent to 6 damage per swing. If you have a 75% chance to hit, it averages out to being equivalent to 9 damage per swing.
So you can build your FPS system so that, for a specific skill level, instead of giving a different chance to hit per skill rank, you change the damage values on hit. So that statistically the damage-skill character matches the overall performance of the miss-chance-skill version of the character.
In this case, even if the player is the best FPS player on the planet, they still can only perform, at best, as well as you have setup the numbers.
Let me give some examples. Say you have 2 characters, one skilled at the Bow (Tom) and one not (Bob)...
In other words, you agree that limiting stat circumvention is important, and the, 'but, TBC systems still allow circumvention of Int", was just a sideshow? Especially as real-time allows use of player int in the very same way. Glad we sorted that.
Now, as I've said all along - a real-time system can reduce stat circumvention in combat actions to a level that is relatively insigificant, as your example seems to. My point all along was that moderate to heavy circumvention is bad, as it reduces the importance of stats. A small amount of circumvention is tolerable, but, adds an extra level of balancing. Thus, for me, the best option is turn-based combat, as it removes the possibility of stat circumvention in combat actions. I am perfectly happy to play games with different mixes, and SOW may very well be one of them, this is just my preferred option, and immutability of stat circumvention is just one reason for that.
After you've dealt with the strength of the character stats, there is the extra concern of making combat enjoyable for the player. Making sure the effect of stats do not over-cripple him, and the damage and speed alterations do not make him feel like he's having little effect on things. It is a fine balancing act, and one which few mixed stat games have implemented to my satisfaction (including some of my favourites). You do seem to be approaching it with the right mindset (well, one that aligns with mine, anyway), so good luck in pulling it off.
It seems to me that some of your points are being made against common epithets thrown around by those who prefer turn-based combat, which is fine, but most of those have not been made by BN or I. I'm not sure we actually disagree all, other than on the Int stat and some wording differences.
RPG
