Tale

I hope they recognize the need for a good editor. Even the best writers need one.

Is it just me or does Edair look really bored? Sort of like he's thinking "uh... can I go yet? No? Okay. :("

I sincerely doubt it will be quest XP. Probably more like challenge XP. A puzzle will give XP whether you solve it or cut the knot. A random encounter will give XP, regardless of whether you talk, fight, or flee. A dungeon will give XP past chokepoints like floor transitions. That kind of thing. Good thing about that design is that you can still give XP for a dungeon with a quest attached even if they don't have the quest. That is if they keep to the equality idea regardless of approach.

Hey, it might give me a chance to play through those 200gb of games that I've bought and downloaded, yet haven't played yet I'm finally making leeway on my third full NWN2 playthrough. And Icewind Dale might get completed this year!

http://www.vg247.com/2012/09/21/project_eternity_kickstarter_obsidian_entertainment_interview/

"Standard" may have been the wrong word. However, they're a common enough enemy type in D&D that they made their way into both Baldur's Gate II and Neverwinter Nights 2, they're a Druid kit, an enemy type and player race in World of Warcraft, have made 2 separate appearances in Elder Scrolls games, and are a major facet of World of Darkness, which then saw an appearance in in Bloodlines, if not Redemption (I haven't made an in-depth effort at Redemption). And beyond RPGs, they have a massive cultural impact including in modern fiction, being part of two popular fantasy novel franchises that then were made into movie franchises in the past 10 years, as well as yet another movie franchise not directly originating in other media. They're not precisely an honest attempt at original creativity in a fantastic context, or even part of the shallow end of exposure for unoriginal creation, at this point in time. Tieflings/Aasimar/Godlike have less exposure than they.

Just because anyone can do it doesn't mean that anyone will. If the PC doesn't do it, perhaps it will go undone. I'm not asking for the PC not to be exceptional. I'm asking for any exceptionalness the PC has not to be built into him by the designers. That I understand. It was TrashMan's claims that seemed to imply any amount of exceptionality is "Marty Stu" and terrible. But he seems to have adjusted, or re-presented it, as an inherent nature/circumstance distinction. And while that has it's problems, I don't see that discussion going anywhere.

And it's precisely what you were promoting as a justification against quests awarding XP. Metagaming as an excuse to not do quests. Here: "It means, for instance, that you can't ever design a story where the consequences are ugly and evil no matter what you do, and the only way to "win" is not to play." That was your argument for not doing quests. That you "win" by not doing them. That you win by metagaming, and somehow this is an argument against quests being the source of XP. But you still did the quest. This is a close approximation of what I was saying. It's a complicated discussion and veers a little off from whether the quest should grant XP or not.

They don't have to. Is there some law where the protagonist should ALWAYS have a way to "win"? No. It's not metagaming unless you're obsessed with ALWAYS "winning" instead of experiencing the story that's out there. I'd like a fair variety. I don't have to always save the hostages. I never said you did. What are you even talking about? Choosing not to save the hostages is part of player agency. It is metagaming if you have some preconception that avoiding a quest is the only way to victory. That's your original statement. And that is the definition of metagame.

This seems to have wildly diverged from the topic. What little there was to begin with.

If saying that quests should accord agency is being arbitrary, it's an arbitrary I can live with. I don't think "agency" equates to "I must be able to have every possible situation work out in a way that suits me". There's nothing removing my agency by putting in quests with horrible results no matter what you do after you take the quest--you still have a choice. You can skip the quest. But you can't tell stories like I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream If there must be a possible happy ending. If you're precluding the existence of an entire *category* of storytelling, then you're not talking about bad design or flawed design any longer. You're talking about what you like and don't like. I'm not saying the outcome must be ideal. But the player should be afforded agency to try their playstyle and be rewarded one way or another, whether it's a standard victory or something else. Saying that the only way to win is to avoid a quest entirely, that is pointless metagaming. The character can't know the outcome in advance.

The concept of good and evil should be struck from the lexicon. They can do what they think is right or do what they think helps themselves. The character should be judged by their actions and how those actions affect those around them, not by their moral compass.

If saying that quests should accord agency is being arbitrary, it's an arbitrary I can live with.

Felicia Day should do all sounds in the game with her voice. Like opening a door or chest, walking over pavement, swinging a sword, etc. Off-topic, but Half-Life 2 has a very cool mod where a guy did this, voiced every sound effect. It turns out better than you'd expect.

I'm not really sure I see the problem here. I don't know that they're building a game to be ideal for players looking to start up a shop and being farming. I think it's perfectly reasonable to establish a game with the assumption players will be adventurers doing quests. "time invested vs. reward" really should only be a secondary or tertiary consideration. Players aren't going to be aggressively counting their playtime for the fastest means to level up. Or at least not generally. It's not an MMO. What they want to do is achieve the objective according to their playstyle. Which is the far more important consideration. What you're proposing ultimately boils down to encouraging the player to do every little thing, even those against his desired agency. He'll feel obligated to craft, sneak, talk, and kill. Instead of just picking the ones he likes and moving forward through the game with that. A complaint you seem worried about for quests, but no other activity. This is a flaw in some quest design. An ideally designed quest should never really have a reason for you to want to turn it down. If you find the quest objectionable, then there's room to turn the quest around and make it about stopping the questgiver instead of helping him. That's kind of what player agency is about. A player should be able to assume that even if he takes on a quest, he's still able to affect it in accordance with his desired agency.

Thank you.

I'm not aware of an endorsement. Not to say it isn't so.

Well, if you're not the only one who can do it, how do you create tension around the fact that the player is the only one doing it? Or is the idea that they should assume it's going to get done either way and the PC is just in a race for first place?

I hope not. 3 standard and 1 D&D expy already, how many races are left? Don't need any more from the standard list.

This explains so much, I talk to everyone that way.

It is. Actually, the site itself maintains that it has no affiliation with Obsidian.

Sounds an awful lot like a kit to me.

It might be possible, but not without its own pitfalls. I mean, I can imagine a class that's built to take advantage of whatever you put into it. Pump all your int and you have a spellsword, pump all your dex and you have a swashbuckler, pump your strength, etc. However, this seems like it'd be difficult to do without turning everyone into an auto-attack bore or otherwise making them all play the same. I'll admit I've never played around with the bones of systems to become well informed enough to back that up.

I think the poll just has some granularity unexplored. A person doesn't seem some magical boost of godly selection or lineage to be not a regular joe. He could just be the try-hardiest joe on the planet. As much an everyman as John McClane. The guy with guts.

I'm probably going to have to cut back my PE support due to recent car troubles.