Llyranor

Firaxis owns the Xcom name right now. EVERYONE EMAIL SID MEIER

I pretty much agree on everything RPdude has said. As for factoring in motivation and thus adequate consequences, the answer is intelligent design and writing. Don't treat the player like an idiot and spoonfeed him everything. If you DON'T want psychos roleplaying themselves, DON'T allow it. Allowing it and saying "haha, too bad, you broke the game" is stupid design. In that sense, I actually see the KOTOR series as a step up in terms of motivational roleplaying (you can only kill some people when the DEVS have catered in proper motivation to do so and thus made some appropriate consequences) - counterintuitive, I know, but I feel it's going in the right direction (in some ways) in terms of storydriven roleplaying.

What about Magical Volo??

And unlimited ranged touch sneak attacks?

Hmm, if Fio gets a shrine, can regular members get one too?

Drizzt has a deep personality!

Spoony bards > u

And backstabbing friends. Hmm, I like rogues.

Hey, some people like to grind. Other people actually want fun gameplay consistently in their games. *shrug*

It's not winning PC GotY awards for nothing. Bribes go a long way, after all.

I didn't call you an idiot You didn't need to point the obvious. He knows what he is :ph34r: In essence, it has a lot to do with what the illusion of choice provides, and how well-veiled it is. When I played DX so many years ago, I wasn't really roleplaying or really immersed. It had some fun relatively open-ended gameplay. Yet, the feeling of being railroaded was definitely there. It was pretty obvious what the devs intended for you. Being able to finish all 3 endings within 15-30 min didn't help disprove that belief. I was a pretty late bloomer for FO1/2 (about 1-2 yrs ago only, actually). Storywise, it didn't have the satisfaction that, say, PST provided, or even some console RPGs. I missed more emphasis on dialogue (blast me all you will, but I only found it functional, not 'great') or party members that actually mattered. Or a 'deeper' storyline. But what is 'deeper' storyline? Was I looking for melodramatic drivel that console RPGs pass off as story? I perhaps didn't realize it, then, but I really really appreciated FO1's plot. It was so simple - 'go find the bloody waterchip, I don't care where it is, just go'; and there you went - free to go out in the world, a blank state. For perhaps the first time, I never felt this brick wall encircling the illusion of choice. I felt no restrictions, that I was free to go and do whatever. And, yet, I was *naturally* driven to look for the water chip. This was a choice - I was immersed. There was no railroading. I never thought to myself 'whoa, this is the best game ever', since I did have some gripes with the game (namely, those mentioned above, and the fact that I don't really agree with a turn-based system where you only control one character). Yet, at some point, I was realising that this was the 'perfect RPG' - not as a whole package, but in terms of pure roleplaying. The plot lead me to roleplay my way to the end of the game. I was exploring the world because I wanted to find the waterchip. Arcanum (which I played before) didn't manage to captivate me in the same way. Sometimes I tell myself that I like Arcanum more, bigger world, more things to do. But, then, did I actually care about Arcanum's story? Dwarves crap? Huh? Contrast with Morrowind. Thrown out in the world, free to do whatever you wanted. At first I was immersed. Yet, ultimately, I realized how utterly pointless and lifeless this whole world was. What was my character even doing? What was my purpose? Nothing was driving me, the main quest was a linear joke that I had no interest in. PST is my favorite RPG, but that's because of its storydriven nature, not its roleplaying one. I suppose that as a pure RPG, FO1 should be superior. PST for me was more roleplaying within a storytelling context. In a sense, I can see why the Codex dudes have been dissing everything that came after FO. Despite this, it has its flaws. Storytelling. Roleplaying. Thinking about FO1 again, I've been pondering design philosophies. Would it be possible to wed the concept of roleplaying within a storytelling context with storytelling within a roleplaying context. Somewhat of a FO meets PST (with KOTOR1/2 and console RPG influences), all while dismissing gaming conventions that detract from the pure roleplaying/storytelling nature of the game. In any case, I've kind of lost my train of thought, I was supposed to talk about DX and its consequences. Roleplaying should indeed be allowed, but at what point? I think that roleplaying without consequences (hi Morrowind!) is ultimately pointless. If killing Mr Stupid in DX was not catered to by the devs, then it would be pointless to allow it. Of course, this doesn't mean we should applaud those devs, but they ARE the storytellers, and one needs to stay within their realm, else there's no point in even pretending to follow their story (if this leads to frustration, then their storytelling is frustrating, and they fail, period). This is why, in a storydriven roleplaying game, motivation-oriented roleplaying should be what's allowed. If you go out of that realm, you're dismissing the storydriven nature of the game and ultimately will end at an impasse; thus further frustration. If killing Mr Stupid only made everyone in your base go hostile, and you would either die or kill them all, with no option to continue the story from there, then it's obvious the devs didn't cater to your action. To them, you had no motive to do what you did. But what if you did? What if you figured out that Mr Stupid was in fact a spy? Killing him would still destroy the storyline? Why? Bad design. This is analoguous to a lot of conventional Bioware stuff. For example, Desther being a bad guy in NWN. You pretty much knew it from the start, but the story didn't allow you to do anything about it, until the epic revelation. Same with KOTOR and finding out you were R-person. Lots of people found out early on (I didn't, go me!!! :D), but still had to play along because Bio wanted to show off their awesome storytelling skills. Let's look at those example. Most probably (aside from saving zots), the reason for those thingies was to promote a 'deeper storyline' ("we'll surprise the player with our super plot twists!!!"). Let's analyze it further. It leads to a frustrating roleplaying experience, because as a player AND as the protagonist, you've already figured out the plot, but can't ACT on it - because the game doesn't allow your motive for such actions; it's been dismissed. What also does it lead to? A frustration story, since it doesn't even work. How do you solve this? Better design, of course. You need to factor in all those motivations, allow the player to put in the pieces by him/herself and figure out the plot and allow motivations from there. Wait, boohoo I don't want to roleplay I want a cool story!!! I wanna find out how I'm the Chosen One!!! WA WA tyranny of choice!!!! BS Why do we play games? Why not read novels? Interactive stories don't mean controlling the characters in battles, it means INVOLVING the player into the story. The plot in FO was made *stronger* because I was actively looking for the water chip and I *wanted* to. It wasn't forcefed to me. Let's look at some other cool storytelling moments in gaming history. - 'Don't trust the skull' - this was BRILLIANT. "Wait a tomb, wait, this is what was written on my back...... wait!" Definitely a defining gaming moment. - Dak'kon and the circle of Zerthimon. Not forcefed, you had to actively work to figure it out, and that made it much more rewarding. Bottom line: don't treat the player like an idiot (except Nick). Involve him/her. I kind of lost my train of thought again, but let's see. Ah, yes, DX and its railroading. Murder the whole base and you have nothing else to go to. End of game. This is the equivalent of Bioware's "evil" options in the BG series (yes, you can be evil, but we'll screw you afterwards!!!). That's not choice, it's game-breaking. Why even bloody allow it if it ONLY leads to frustration? In FO, you can murder everyone, I guess. That doesn't stop you from playing the game, I guess. You can stilll figure out alternate ways of continuing. This is good in terms of roleplaying, but despite how fun it is to roleplay serial killers, I'm not sure I agree personally with that design philosophy. Allowing roleplaying 'just because' has always been a problem with me. If the motive isn't really being considered by the devs, can the consequence really be anything more than superficial? In Morrowind, you can kill people. So what? Boohoo, some guards go after me. Boohoo, pay money, deal done. Even in FO, I guess you can murder whole towns or something. It'll be tough. But, then what? Okay, you killed everyone. Move on. Next. I don't really find satisfaction in that. There's consequence, sure, but it feels superficial to some extent. From a gameplay/roleplaying perspective, it can work ("ok, I've roleplayed that and done this, this makes these next steps harder, good - consequence"). But from a storytelling/roleplaying perspective, not as much. It works more for a sandbox type of game. What I would really love is that - if I *did* commit mass murder for a good motive, then the game would CATER to it. "Ok, I've found out that this cult is really bad, but I have no physical proof. They're going to do something really bad tonight, I must act first". Of course, action means murder. Of course, you can already do this. Roleplaying, sure. But then, a storydriven consequence would be very neat. "I'm being hunted by the law now, I need to somehow accumulate evidence that I acted on just grounds, because vigilante murder is justifiable). I want all this factored in from a story perspective. I don't just want roleplaying as a gameplay mechanic. I don't want the world I'm exploring to just be some mathematical formulas that I solve in various ways, and that's that. I want storytelling in my roleplaying, and roleplaying in my storytelling. I probably have a lot of conflicting opinions in there, but that's because I'm not really sure what kind of design I really want in the end.

Good thing you're reading this thread, though, right?

Meh. For those into online gaming, it's a great time to be a PC gamer. That's at least one field where new technology is actually an essential and much appreciated enhancement, gameplay-wise. 2006 should be a very nice year.

Then you play NWN, and soon NWN2. MMORPGs cannot compete in the realm of 'roleplaying'.

Actually, I'm looking forward to the new Warlock class. The various incantations sound like they could be lots of fun. Different shapes for the blast depending on the situation, and different enhancements depending on the enemies' weaknesses (saves). Would be somewhat similar to the shifter (which I loved going through SoU and HotU with), seeing how long I could go without resting.

Making 360 games compatible for Windows would be a stupid move for MS, because MS wants to sell their 360 console that don't cost them money.

Well, I just like 3.5 because they've improved my 3 favorite classes for the better. Monks with quarterstaves!!! EDIT: Q: Is applying an eldritch essence / eldritch blast a free action? A: Modifying your eldritch blast with a blast shape or eldritch essence is so free, you can do it at no cost at all. It's like the decision of how much you want to Power Attack for. I wouldn't even dignify it by calling it a free action. Excellent.

http://www.sorcerers.net/Main/Articles/nwn2_interview.php There isn't exactly anything really new, but the emphasis here was on the 3.5e rules. Then I remembered that I don't really know the 3.5e rules that well. From the class rebalancing, I remembering the monk being able to use the quarterstaff and having an improved Flurry of Blows; the bard being able to cast in light armor and having 6skills/lvl; the ranger being able to choose whether to morph into Drizzt or Legolas, having 6skills/lvl and 8hp/lvl. Is there much rebalancing in the other more classes? Anything significant? Also, does anyone know if incantations on the Eldritch Blast for the Warlord are free actions, or whether any modifications to the blast require wasting more time?

But were you 'roleplaying', or just being yoursel.... haha, never mind.

Why would you guys need to roleplay psychos? I mean, it's not like any of you aren't alrea.... never mind.

OMG I want them all to return!! that would be grreat!!! LOL

What do you mean, "roleplaying"?

Just get Civ4.

I've just adopted Xfire. Nice little program. Lets you see when your buddies are playing what games - even allows you to jump mid-game into the server they're on. Very convenient, and could be a very useful tool for any gaming community. Built-in voice chat system is VERY nice.

Diablo ISN'T an RPG, the devs never called it such. It's morons who assign it such a label.