Wombat

Personally, I like the approach that religions reflect the worldviews and the lives of societies/individuals just like in our world. However, what's with the god of greed in this update and the early mention of gods scheming? For example, people who worship a god of wealth can earn a reputation of being greedy from other people. However, if a certain people worship "god of greed", then, how can they earn social trust in the first place? Simply, I cannot come up with even a possible example. Something that strikes me as slightly irregular about RPG implementations of pantheons is the concept of people only praying to a specific god. CRPGs like NWN2 have you pick a particular god to worship, as if that is your only choice. Yet in ancient societies with multiple gods, the people would often pray to many deities. A city like Athens would have a tutelary deity, but there would be other temples to other gods worshiped on particular days of the year. Wouldn't it make more sense to be able to choose multiple deities that you favor? Say your top 3? Yeah, Rune Quest is famous for this approach of dividing social groups through ideologies. In polytheist cultures, for example, they share a set of gods, whose worshipers have different roles in their societies. In this way, the allied deities are shared among same cultures. For example, even if your character is a worshiper of Ares, he/she still respects Zeus, too. Although the designers mixed up some factors, it's obvious that their models are our real-world religions in the past. Although Sawyer tells that the inhabitants of PE share traits with us, I cannot come up with an example of a god of greed as an object of worship. Also, I don't think that our gods would scheme by themselves.

Personally, I like the approach that religions reflect the worldviews and the lives of societies/individuals just like in our world. However, what's with the god of greed in this update and the early mention of gods scheming? For example, people who worship a god of wealth can earn a reputation of being greedy from other people. However, if a certain people worship "god of greed", then, how can they earn social trust in the first place? Simply, I cannot come up with even a possible example.

About the symbol in the chest of the orlan, contrary to my first impression, the resistance is not hidden? For underground organizations are often depicted as using signs recognized exclusively by their members rather than such noticeable symbols to anyone.

A god of greed? I wonder if there is a real world example. Will people worship a god which symbolizes vice in their own language/notions? Of course, people from other cultures have different opinions/attitudes but I don't think he is talking of such case here. Alliance/hostilities among gods can be implemented in interesting ways. For example, in Rune Quest, as well as it works in simulating social relationship between characters, ruleset-wise, characters are not only allowed to access abilities granted by the object of their own worship but also their alliances (although in limited ways). Thanks for the update, anyway. I think it's the first update form creative team.

So far, I think the developers have been doing a great job in writing about the game development in a way even I can understand (And I appreciate it). Also, it's a pleasant surprise that some veteran developers including Brain Fargo come up with interesting views/ideas through Kickstarter campaigns. In fact, Wastelands 2 team even have gone as far as crowd outsourcing. BTW, I don't know much about internet board software but, if there is someone capable of this, could you implement developer post search function, most liked by day/week, and something like "sort by liked" in the search interface? I don't think there are many people who have time to read every single post/thread. Nowadays, I can only check the update threads and skim through them.

One of the things which Rune Quest did well is its use of religions as worldviews of the characters, which play an important role in identifying themselves in social context of the imaginary world. Gods actively fiddling with human politics makes them as one of the key political players rather than just being objective of worships. In narrative sense, they may appear as NPCs like in Mask of the Betrayer. However religions/beliefs are going to be presented, I'd like them as one of the aspects of human conditions. Rather than just one-shot philosophical twists, I'd like to see religions have their histories and deeply rooted lives in the imaginary world. Also, while polytheism may be somehow standard in fantasy world, I'd like to see some animism/shamanism, too. Some sociologists/anthropologists interpret Totemism as a way of connecting natural environment with social identifies, for example. This kind of thing may have some twists to "druid" images in a conventional fantasy world, while giving some backbones to the setting.

In Morrowind, what makes the "story" coherent hugely depends on how much the players tried to "explore" the world with actively interpreting the meanings behind the abundunt lore. In this way, Morrowind didn't even try to patronize the players. I don't mind Beth blushing up the game-plays but, unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten to treat the players with respect.

I know this thread is quite old but just stumbled upon this article today. I guess I underestimated Old English. The other parts don't seem to be too far from my own understanding, though.

I beleive the division is nearer to that of their projects in BIS: Basically, they are doing what they had been proven to be good at. So, as long as our expectations remain rational, personally, I don't seem too many problems. Of course, unpredictable things can happen but considering their experience, at least, I think it's one of the safer bets in cloud-funding.

I think Sawyer is probably one of the best choices for the lead in Obsidian when it comes to resource management, due to his critical thinking and experience. As long as Sawyer keeps other designers on track, preventing them from "improving" things even in last minutes as in their old habits, I don't think the ship is going to end up with being on a mountain. I don't know about other people but I found some of stretch goals were quite ambitious and I even asked for 4M stretch goal to be "realistic." This might have disappointed some people but, I think, Obsidian made a good decision of sacrificing Avellone's private vacation time for the success of the project. Also, quite many old "unfinished business" mods tend to be about some sub-plots, which can mean the main elements were already completed and that there were already enough content and solid system, inspiring the modders to add further content. I guess it's more about interpretation. After all, how can we tell something like RPGs can be completed? In fact, I think rather games after the demise of Interplay felt rushed (IWD2, KotORII, ToEE, Alpha Protocol and FONV*). This is why I have repeated no costly implementations such as full voice-over, 3D camera, cut-scenes, and physics engines. I don't know much about inside QA works and this is not intended for counterargument but rather a personal view from years of observation. Can be more beneficial if these are sorted out depending on the size and the aim of the development. *In FONV's case, despite of the general reception, I think it is in relatively good shape especially considering it is based on Gamebryo. Can be more beneficial if these are sorted out depending on the size and the aim of each project.

Thanks for the update. Probably because reading comments, some design documents, and other sources for years, the pie charts seem to be quite natural to my eyes. Also, some designers occasionally complained of feeling like a part of a huge machine as in . Some of recent entries of K. Saunder's and Ziets' Formspring let us glance at the game development. I hope Obsidian will gradually give info about who are responsible for what elements of the game. For it would work when some of them try to make cloud-funding in future, either as Obsidian or a part of any other entity.* Also, giving such info would be helpful to those who are thinking of getting into the industry. * I don't hope Obsidian will lose some talents but I'd like whole the industry to be more flexible especially in terms of human resource management.

Oh, yes. Coming back later is another valid option. In any case, there should be no needs for umber-lock-picking tools, IMO - from the game-balance point of view, at least.

Whether it is called realism or believability, I'd like to see cultural descriptions especially when they are deeply rooted in the setting - even the same thing can be called in a different words. That said, no matter how these in-world descriptions would be, the game-mecahnic should be clear to the players. I beleive this is more of interface design issue, though.

That sounds more rational, IMO. The idea in terms of game-balancing is that, basically, you need a character who is skilled at lock-picking to beat quality locks but, if the margin between his/her skill and the difficulty level is not so wide, the players can fill the margin by spending some money or resources. So, if you build a character with high lock-picking skill, you won't need such resources or even try higher locks with the consumables. Simply, designers shouldn't make unbeatable locks even for such characters. Rather, the question here is, I thinnk, how to maintain system balance while keeping believability.

As for the original topic of fixed or increasing ability scores (We all know the OT is not about rolling), it all depends on how the system is going to be designed. I've even come across with someone who seems to think skill system is always tied to aggressive ability score increase but it's not true. - Probably, he/she hadn't played original Fallout. Simply, modern game systems took the path of letting the players play the game first, and invest on the game-plays of their liking (even at unconscious level). PST anticipated this in terms of the intention, which ended up with conflicting with some basic D&D rules and the expectations of the players from the D&D logo, which turned out to be rather misleading. BTW, GURPS had high-adaptability but it's game-balance was... Generally speaking, more flexible systems mean more tougher to balance. About agressive character advancements, quite many CRPGs have this, no matter what they are base on - ability scores, skills, and/or class-based increases. Some PnP systems only allow quite limited margins of these "ability" increases once the characters are created through their backgrounds (My liking. Among CRPG, Darklands has this feel). If not this extreme, (semi-)fixed ability scores/classes are unforgiving for the players who are unfamiliar with the rule-set*. On the other hand, if the players are familiar with the rule-set, letting them define their characters in character creation gives the players clear image of their characters. * This seems to be why some designers are inclined to allow the players to respec in a way or another. Quite many people who work on writing manuals don't seem to think information is perfectly transferred among people without any possible misunderstanding. Agreed. My preference in presentation is something like- building a high INT fighter allows the character choose more strategic choices.

I wonder why this thread is still surviving since according to what is revealed so far, characters can keep various views. So, if you want your character to be an "atheist" or one of those who don't admit a certain race/existences/entities* as the object of his/her worship, then, you can do that. Likewise, if you like your character to be a pious character who warships such existences/entities which are conventionally worshiped in the world, then, you have the option, too. So, it's a win-win scenario, at least, in imaging the stances of your characters in your way of liking. *The description is obscure since how these "gods" are presented is not revealed yet.

And that's why I didn't touch them in my previous post - after all, if everything is balanced out, I don't have any problem. Some skill/ability synergies to tackle with obstructions seem to be underconsideration in the game although even whether they work in a concrete or an abstract way is yet to be revealed. Rather than independent mini-games, I think this kind of implementation is more suitable for a party-based system.

Yeah, that's my understanding, too, at least on normal mode. I wonder if I can toggle it on/off once I started the game with expert mode, though. Then again, if it's just a name, I can start normal mode with options which resemble expert mode with the tags on and some conveniences which can ease my pain in cooping the game with my life. After all, who cares about what mode with which I play the game.

Personally, I'd like to have an option of turning off/on the game-system related info. For, no matter how convinced the designers are that they made everything clear in the manual, players still need to see how the system play in the actual game-play. After I learnt how each skill/ability score work, I can turn it off (So, I guess my case is about "designer-player communication"). Different from EXP or some other cases which can ruin balances, I don't care if other people go for meta-gaming since it won't affect on my game-play at all.

If mages can use their magic to open locks/conceal themselves, there are no need for thieving skills and rogues. The same thing goes to thieving tools. If the party can buy/gain non-consumptive thieving tools, it will replace the thieving skills. It's similar to asking for allowing fighters to use powerful magic spells. In the first place, why do systems divide characters into classes/categorize skills? I agree that realism/believability is important but allowing some options often messes up with game-balance as well as making the game-play out-of-focus. If you play as a game master for gamists, it often makes a game of a GM and the players try to outsmart each other rather than a role-playing game. In this case, a GM might make a deathtrap for an empty chest/room occasionally, for example. However, players also come up with different ideas to outsmart the GM - This "game" will continue till either of them quit. Some people seem to find this amazing but I think it gets absurd or boring pretty quickly, even destroying game systems, at times - There must be other interesting things to be explored. Indeed, some GMs appear to dismiss any creativity from the players' side but what I mean here is infertile and vicious circle of meta-gaming. While GMs have to react to the players feed-backs, they are also responsible for preventing some activities from derailing the game-play experiences. After all, why should the rule-sets be needed?

[Off Topic (...probably...)] About how much should be stated in the PC dialogues, Morrowind took a minimalist approach for both the players and the NPCs.* However, while TES is more of simulationist approach, Obsidians games are known for being more narrativist, which is nearer to novels. Ultimately, how far the description should cover is or not depends on the taste of the players, I think. As for the [Lie] option, lies can be detected by NPCs in a way or another: He/she/they may realized logical contradictions and/or solid evidences. Also, there is a Cipher class whose ability may play a certain role in dialogues. Letting the players dictate the motivation can enable the NPCs react to it, while the absence of such option simply leaves things to the imagination of the players (and of course, no reactions from the NPCs) - It's an issue of pros and cons. For example, in Alpha Protocol, Leland played as a tool for the players to make the motivation clear about what the PC has done but there are rooms for the players to be evasive. As a side note, personally, I'm against soul setting playing role in role-playing except as an ability. Like in the cases of the "gods," they should be rooms for interpretations, IMO. PS BTW, is that only me who was surprised to see quite many people are talking of about how far dialogues should dictate despite of the thread title? I guess I'd leave it to the mods. * It was very intentional that Rolston kept the world so lore rich. Morrowind chose a totally different direction compared with commonly known narrativist CRPGs.

I like to figure out some mysteries but, personally, I don't like to be asked for the responsibility of what the pre-set characters had done without any choices about it. In PST, I felt the previous incarnations are more of NPCs rather than the PC, removing the sense of TNO being my character, to some extent. More varieties of the PC archetypes might have mitigated this but, ultimately, it's the issue of pre-set character(s): I think the designers can put the outcomes to the players' face in a more effective way when the PC has been judged by his/her own doing. Of course, I admit that pre-set characters have their own merits but, in PE, the PC seems to be more of a "blank-state" character, according to the information so far and I'd like the designer to design the possible story and role-playing possibility in that way.* The same thing goes to "talkative" NPCs. It may be realistic for the NPCs to talk before the PC, especially they find the PC has obvious defects in his/her INT/CHA or conversation skills but it may take some control from the players. As NPCs are under the control of the designers, the PCs should be under the control of the players. Mixing these things can produce unwanted results, which may fail to counterbalance the novelty. This may sound a bit control-freakish but, ultimately, what differentiate dialogues in role-playing games from interactive novels and even just novels? Indeed, Boone in Fallout: New Vegas tries to kill any legionaries he spots but, considering the number of NPCs and that the game seems to require many more party members than FONV format, such characterization may not be a wise choice...wonder if there can be better compromises. *To be fair, I think KotORII made some interesting attempts on the pre-set character by letting the players to choose what the PC did in the past by letting the NPCs ask questions about a key factors as a part of relatively natural dialogues. A nice usage of dialogue and, indeed, the story doesn't need to be tracked in chronological order. I cannot remember if even some flashbacks are affected by these dialogues, though. These constant efforts in dialogues is one of the reasons which have kept me following Obsidian despite of some flaws in their works.

So, is it your "unprejudiced" opinion? I don't think we can even recognize "info" without any prejudice or bias and it's nice to experiment some in imaginary world rather than dealing with real people with full of prejudices either in our real lives or through the net. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be an option in our real lives. That said, to be absolutely honest, it's often a controversial topic which has possibility to make things interesting in an experimental environment but, again sadly, quite many people seem to mix such experiment with their real-life views. At least, what interest me in role-playing games is that it allows me to simulate things in various shoes under a certain themes. Traditionally, something like Gulliver, Brave New World and 1984 tried to shed lights upon human nature in imaginary settings, securing themselves from real-world politics, and I'd like to have such experience in games.

Depending on how the PC treated the NPCs, they may go against the PC. However, it should be done in a convincing way rather than in an abrupt way or in a way which encourages meta-gaming of influence points. Rather than random and thus (somehow mechanical) betrayals, I'd like the NPCs to have their own story arches interwoven into the main plot. They may betray together at a certain point of the main plot like being planned in KotoRII (and MotB, depending on the choices of the PC). However, they may turn against the PC independently at some point of the main plot as a part of the NPC story-arches like in PST. Unlike the example in PST, I'd like to have a few options to deal with the NPC, depending on how the PC treated the NPC. Some characters in AP are not honest to the PC and they may betray PC at a certain times ( ). So, I guess Obsidian have already done some homeworks. BTW, talking of NPC reactions, how about the possibility of some little (or big) white lies? In PST, almost all lies are from selfish purpose but it's not the only intention which makes people lie. Depending on the implementation, there are archetypes of the PC characters ranging from misunderstood saint to hideous liar who is not totally corrupted. Just an idea, though.

The difference between Joan of Arc and Hans Böhm is that almost no one remembers Hans Böhm. Joan of Arc is a "great woman" of history remembered for turning the tide of the Hundred Years War and leading Charles VII to his coronation; Hans Böhm's revolt failed and he was virtually forgotten. "Great" men/women are difficult to study (especially in the case of saints) for elements of their humanity because their legends loom so large. It simply occurred to me that, whether remembered or not, both of them followed the same fate. It's just that, in our modern view, how would it be to be considered as a "saint" just because she thought she had a vision to be involved in political conflicts, ending up with being executed as a "witch." How did "her greatness" work to her life? Whether the fame was earned after or during their lives, what did it mean to them? It might be just that Jean worked favorably for some authorities (French upper classes), while Bohem was simply inconvenient for any authority. However, what did it mean to them? Also, a thought came to me about PE setting: If someone, who happens to have a "strong soul," has a "vision" of saints/gods in PE world and believes it's his/her "fate" and at the same time, then, how people around him/her would react to him/her? How would political/religious authorities try to deal with him/her? Is it comical or tragic? I thought it may be interesting as a place where political interests and pure beliefs are interrelated each other. In any case, I'm not arguing against you and, if you try to stick to exploring possible lives in the setting, I'd say, go for it. However, going further, what does being famous and being remembered mean to each individual? No matter how hard we try, there must be always something which always slip from learned eyes and it's possible however we tag these "historical figures."