owlassociate wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your main criticism of OgreBattle premise just, "I'm not interested in the game you're proposing on a conceptual level"?
You are wrong. Now let me correct you with far too much detail.
That seems to be Lago's brief criticism of... this.
My main criticism of his idea is that it isn't one. It's an ever shifting mess of unrelated and insane nonsense and contradictions presented about as poorly as possible.
Ogrebattle cannot or won't meaningfully answer basic questions about it without spouting irrelevant nonsense that then raises further questions or criticisms by other posters, which is then answered with MORE unrelated nonsense that raises more questions and so on forever.
Lets try actually parsing his text at all.
Opening Post
Fighters should win on reaching base to base contact.
Like Conan does once in contact
in a single blow.
Conan sometimes throws his sword or a chair. [???]
Getting in range in the first place is the risk for Conan.
So consider how you do that on a grid. [then stop and do something else apparently]
Fighting "hyper specialized melee characters" in melee if you aren't one should be deadly.
But kiting should be avoided. [whut, what happened to the "Conan's risk is even getting there"]
One way to do this is to offer a dichotomy of getting there and winning or getting defeated while out of range. [oh FFS kiting back again hey?]
?? [lack of appropriate connective language] ??
Reduce ranged attack accuracy dramatically beyond Conan throws a stool range. [???]
That was the opening post. It was that much god damn nonsense and it wasn't long.
Some people proposed some more random nonsense. Because people do that. Some people asked "wait if archer whut do?" and I asked "Fighter fights fighter what happun?". Not super hard questions to answer in "it's just filling out an idea" land.
He responded to fighting a fighter with...
I could use [by implication of his own words bad] over complex fencing rules, go read a whole thread somewhere, find it yourself.
Or I could use [by implication of his own words good] fast "normal" rules.
[To achieve what in either case ??? Oh and it increasingly becomes clear the real answer is "I'm doing the first one I myself described as having bad attributes and couldn't possibly describe the intention of in fewer words than that entire linked threads"]
And then reiterates that melee specialists win melee but says only by the proportion that they are melee specialists... which elaborates on and answers nothing.
He responds of all things to a simple "move or shoot" to prevent kiting with...
I saw a thing where archers could only effectively shoot into melees and otherwise missed their targets. I shouldn't claim realism, realism is bad, but if I rebrand realism as an example that's cool.
Archery is for ambushes and flank attacks.
Archery is bad at fighting melee dudes focusing on you [by context he means ones
not yet in close range so actually NOW melee specialists win against range specialists UNLESS ambush/shooting into melee even when not at close range]
Archers need to bring melee dudes to fight melee dudes [BUT THEN WHAT HAPPUN?]
Archers should not just exclusively use ranged weapons [But they DO lose for not being "hyper" specialists with anything else right?]
Let me present the realism argument of the historic British longbowman... [how long did that anti-realism argument stance last exactly?]
Archers shouldn't deal sword level damage at range... [uh... okaaaay... where is this going...?]
WIZARDS should deal sword level damage at range! [WHUT!?]
Or maybe whurhammeralcemyblah [it guns isn't it. it's dwarfy dwarf wizardy bang guns. fuck archers specifically just hate on the bows only other ranged is fine I guess]
States he doesn't play RPGs these days, he plays war games. This justifies and interacts with nothing, but now we know.
In response to "wait" D&D already has disadvantages to range combat, what else do you actually feel is needed?
I want Bloodbowl + Killteam - clutter [that is word for word. Really.]
This just reminded me of non-kill based objectives in wargames! [again, actually said that]
I don't know much about burning wheel, so I will ask about it. [does not proceed to ask, so I guess that was the question]
In response to kiting is hard to get rid of and you should probably allow it...
There's this historic realism example some guy said of throwing rocks at people while fencing. [already forgot he said he shouldnt do that, again]
And only now after a quote on another topic and a fail irrelevant response to it I will separately get around to asking a largely unrelated question about Burning Wheel.
In response to an honestly very detailed and long explanation of how to do all-that-stuff-sort-of in Burning Wheel...
One line saying actually I think Bloodbowl knock off rules are already fine thanks.
In response to "I would like a system that makes choices interesting and variable and that seems to be about making the environment important"?
Yes. I don't want kiting an ogre in an open field to happen! [???]
Scenarios and goals for each side should avoid that! [????}
I want variable, asymmetrical, and secret win objectives just like in wargames! [
?????]
Aren't RPGs silly for having combat encounters mostly revolve around defeating enemies!
Look at how games workshop lords of the rings wargames are like fantasy hobbit football! [...and? wait, didn't bloodbowl love cover enough of this? what even?]
In response to, "no wait seriously making melee deadly encourages archers to kite"
Oops did I forget to mention ogres need other abstracted single action win conditions too? [??? Really ?]
Like running off with cattle. [No. Just. So much no on that example]
Or killing like the one special guy. [By reaching melee. Which is how it apparently wins. With or without this condition]
Or holing a wall [By reaching melee with the wall. So it and others can also reach melee with archers. Thus "wining" what, double twice?]
Like in the epic battles of lord of the rings movies. [ugh]
Which is more interesting than kiting an ogre in an open field. [so... by admission even more unrelated to anything]
Yes making it impossible to kill things at range is NOT what I want to do! [For this next five seconds at least, but not consistent with previous stated desires in the slightest]
If the goal is to kill ogres that are weak to being kited in open fields then instead of that encounter the party should go on an entire adventure where they lure it there and like dig a pit or something.
That would make it cool.
I like computer games.
someone suggests playing what really does appear to be the biggest expensive sick joke in board game RPG hybrids ever generated by kickstarter for no good reason at all
Yes I want to play that! The secret decks of killer tpk hard core monster abilities you are supposed to randomly draw from in game without ever seeing them first sound fun!
In response to "why is kiting ogres so bad, it looks like things are becoming a mess to make melee ogres competent"
Naw not going for that. [really, You aren't
trying to do the
accidental bad thing even people doing it don't want to do? Well that solves that then!]
Actually reiterate the "make an encounter into a whole adventure maybe with a pit or something" complete with "I like computer games" as if people missed it the first time but NOW it's relevant.
Reiterate the lord of the rings [movie since it needs specifying] example only now arrows can "definitely" kill the melee beasts, but
cannot stop them winning by making melee contact with something. [Did archers need yet another way to lose here?]
So now killing stuff is possible. But archers will like, lose on points or something instead if anyone dares to kite/stand on a wall shooting inevitable doom in a futile manner as it approaches.
If ogres just didn't go into open fields much wouldn't them losing when they do be ok?
Yes it should be an entire adventure instead of an encounter! [No one else said that. No one.]
So yeah. There ARE some through lines with consistency.
Like fuck archers and only archers specifically, again and again in every possible way, other ranged, probably fine, definitely wizards and boom sticks are.
Like, wargames and computer games are cool can't stop loving on fucking bloodbowl, name drop all the RPG and board games that sound like they've ever been fashionable and could lure a reply out of a fan but don't like, interact with the relevant mechanics in the discussion, just bloodbowl will do fine already thanks.
But there is so much nonsense and contradictions and insanity and total failure to engage with meaningful responses to anyone... even those might be accidental.
A meaningful discussion of an idea like this would START with a description of what it intends to do more broadly than in one single conan/an ogre vs fucking scum bag archers who should die in a hole I hate them nerf nerf nerf.
When it comes to further interactions it took all this time to scrape out of the gaps "melee wins at close range" "melee wins at long range" "archers need to bring melee to win against melee" and "archers can beat melee by killing it but it still wins on points with a suicide bomb".
I would have preferred, if, when prompted, we got a single specific plain English brief yet relevant answer on the fighter v fighter. Then we could have moved on to archer v archer, wizard v fighter, wizard v archer, any other archetypes all so far unmentioned, varying range bands and terrain, group match ups, outnumbering, and what all this "definitely not kiting but doing
something to try and keep conan from reaching melee before you can kill him with probably not arrows because fuck them specifically" even looks like. Then we could at least know... what this even wants to be, then you could consider talking about what it actually does and how it does it or could do it or could do it better.
It's not that this idea couldn't maybe in an alternative universe be smart, hell, or even just routinely ordinary to the point of excessive familiarity. But in the form it is presented it is relentless stupid at every turn.