Merin

Alpha Protocol is an awesome game, and is pretty far up there for favorite games. It certainly is one of the most replayed games I own, right up there with Icewind Dale and Freedom Force.

No, they don't. They champion the illusion of choice. Most of their choices have no consequence. Later games from them are limiting choice due to their focus on cinematic presentation and full VO. To be honest though, I don't understand you desire for romance. When you claim you can imagine party members on the one hand, and prefer that to dev designed companion. Then on the other championing dev developed romances. Surely you could just imagine the romance, right? Your problem - and that of so many others in this thread - is your presumptions. You (in general, the anti-romance people, not you specific, Bos_hybrid) presume, because I don't insult BioWare or the BSN endlessly, that I don't call all romance in games crap, that I say that I enjoy romance in games... that I want romanceable companions or romanceable NPCs for my character (or characters) in some kind of dating simulation. I don't. You (again, general, not you specifically) also presume that when I say that the gutter is the best part of the comic that I somehow am saying that I don't want the panels that surround the gutter. Hint - you can't have the gutter without the panels. This is the barest simplicity of story-telling: deciding what to show, what not to show, which moments are critical, which moments are unimportant, and which things to leave to the imagination of the reader / viewer / player. Engaging someone in your story requires pulling them in, and you pull them in by making it personal to them on some level. You can't possibly create a story that is personal to most of your audience, but you CAN leave gaps for them to fill in themselves (almost always without them consciously doing it - this isn't Mad Libs) which makes the story their own. It's like Seal used to say about his lyrics for his songs - he didn't want to print them because he wanted his audience to get what they wanted out of his music. It's like every detective story where the murder happens off screen, or horror movie where you never see the creature, or love story where the movie ends when the couple gets together.... it leaves the details unspoken up to you, and you'll imagine what best fits your tastes, and you'll like the experience better than if it's all spelled out for you. Arguing this point is a derailment of the thread - and it's not like I have a stake in defending the concept. It isn't mine, and frankly, you can disbelieve it all you want. If I have to go through the day knowing that many people don't believe in climate change, evolution, or that trickle-down doesn't work... I can live with people refusing to accept sociological notions about how we enjoy fiction.

Sorry! I really didn't believe it was me alone - I did say "nearly" and "basically"! I thought some others had not agreed with the "we are actors playing prescripted roles" stance, I just didn't feel like doing another thread hunt for examples! My sincerest apologies, Sistergoldring!

To be fair, it started as a nearly one-sided debate of "you can't role-play your character because the writers create your character" being the excessively dominant stance in the thread and basically my voice solely saying "uhm, you can role-playing in a cRPG and the writers often DON'T creature your character." I'm shocked at how little defense (like none) there has been about playing your own character. so hated that Again, where we differ a bit. I don't mind if the game takes input from me, the player, to indicate my character's motivations and the game adjusts quests and such accordingly. I think the game can be allowed to know the PC's motivations if it allows the player to tell the game those motivations directly in some way.

Excuse me. One PM chain. With a back and forth, where you asked if I was ignoring you, I apologized if I had missed something - told you I wasn't ignoring you - and asked which question I had missed, you gave me a link, and I pointed out that I had responded to that post, which then you apologized and admitted your error. One PM. One chain of several responses back and forth. I don't think getting nitpicky about this is making you seem less irrational. And that last point I bolded - "the mods can check" - what, is this a contest on who's lying more? I thought you were looking for great debates, for both sides respecting each other, not trying to paint me as a bad guy? Where is "you ignored my post" and "if you'd even read what I said" debating with respect? That's accusing, based on speculation. You cannot know if I read it entirely or not, if I ignored it or not. All you have is what I chose to respond to. Acknowledged. Repeatedly. Even to you in what you are quoting and then trying to call me a hypocrite on by pulling the tu ququo - Except I give the important caveat of noting that - Yet you won't let that go - Watch what is happening as I'm even trying to address most of your points in a relatively short post? See how long this is getting? Maybe I would have, had it been a point of contention for me. It isn't. I'm not the one demanding that people read a ridiculous amount of threads to answer every single one of my points or else they aren't allowed to debate - Example 1 - "I'm going to let you give counter-arguments for rest of my message before answering yours, only fair." Example 2 - "Have fun reading and counter-arguing" Example 3 - "I expect counter arguments on all the points I've give in those posts. Enjoy!" You start off demanding that someone respond to seven quotes before you will answer them (it's only fair that they respond to everything you demand they do), and advance to demanding, excuse me, "expecting" that people must respond to a list of 6 links which go to lengthy posts. I'm not the one making post after post about "you aren't answering every point I made" and PMing others "did you ignore me, am I on ignore because I didn't see your response" even though the response had been made. Heck, I'm not even the guy so desperate to be seen as beating my interlocutor that I have to start an entire thread just to show I can out-debate him - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61814-re-rpgs-audiences-publishers-mass-markets-and-everything-between-earth-and-sky/page__view__findpost__p__1255606 Help me out here - were you done with me but just one more post, or... are you done with me now?

Do you think the game (game writers) should force motivation onto the PC in a cRPG where the player gets to make his or her own character?

That kind of thing in KotOR 2 was excessively heavy-handed and awkward. It did pull me out of the game with more than a little frustration at times. However, as has been pointed out before on many occasions, I tend to give games more leeway than you do in this area.

Not "conveniently ignored" but there is a certain amount of forum ettiquette to follow about not creating endless, ridiculously long posts. It is nigh impossible to respond to everything. We've already had this discussion. In PM's even. Trying to play off now like I'm selectively ignoring all your points because I can't reasonably quote and answer every part of your (by your own admission) lengthy posts is absolutely unfair. I've asked before for you to list a few points for us to discuss, not post a page of things to respond to. I felt the most important thing to address this time was trying to get you to understand that I wasn't trying to patronize you. Often, less is more. The longer a post gets, the harder it is for everyone to read it and absorb it's entirety. Give me points to address, as long as they aren't too many at one time, and I'll debate with you. I freely admit that my posts (like this one) get entirely too long. But I am trying to only respond to certain points, and to keep my points as short as I can. I FAIL at keeping them short, ALL THE TIME, but I don't berate people for not addressing every little thing I say. Cherry picking and taking things out of context, however, I will call out.

Just wanted to chime in to say that I disagree with this assumption. What if you want the world and the NPCs to react to your motivations? If you don't state them in the game, you lose this dimension of NPC interactions. Granted, it's very difficult to cover all motivations, and not having your preferred option sucks, but if the conversation is well done the options should be broad enough to make this a non-issue. Arguably he's right, the game can't know the players motive only react to his choices. The game can only react to what you do not why you did it (which is why the old "donate to a church / whack a villager" reputation meter in the IE games was kind of wonky). However, there is the question that if the game only reacts to what you do under appropriate understandings (for the game) of what you did, then is it essentially indistinguishable from understanding what your motivations were (or at least render the motivations moot) in context of the game / NPC. To use an example, in FONV, in Nipton when you talk to Vulpes Inculta if you express outrage at what he's done in dialogue he'll say something to the effect that if the player feels strongly about it to attack him and the Legionnaires. Lets say you attack them and win. From the games perspective it doesn't matter WHY Vulpes was attacked, or even that Vulpes invited me to do it. There way its handled - Ceaser's Legion sees me as a hostile - is regardless of my motivation. In essence the motivation behind the action is rendered irrelevant to the reaction the game gives the player and yet still reactive to what the player did. Game reactions to the player's character don't have to depend on the player's character's motivations for what the PC did... but the game really should NOT dictate what the PC's motivations were, either. I think that's the difference.

(this is called poisoning the well, btb, what you are trying) Here's the thing, you did a nice edit job to make it look like I was addressing you, and only you, directly - I wasn't. Let's take another look at what you call my "snarky comments" that say that "jarpie doesn't understand C&C," hence being "real classy" - If you're using a game as your deliverer of story, you should know your tools of trade and make the best out of them. I think *that* is a sign of good story-teller. I think a major problem here is context, once more. "Choice and consequence" is a term for games that means something kind of specific. Clearly any video game lets you make "choices" if you want to delve into semantics - in Space Invaders, do you move the cannon left or right, do you fire now or wait a second then fire - with consequences being do you get hit by the enemy fire or survive, and does your shot hit or miss. But for role-playing games it tends to mean story and world changing choices... not just which load out of weapons you have or do you dodge left or right. So, clearly, in a game you need to have reactivity to the player's actions - else you might as well watch a movie passively. But when I say "choice and consequences" (and I think when most devs talk about it) they mean "player decides to save NPC A or NPC B, or player decides to join faction A or faction B, or player gives resources to the town guard swordsmen or to the town guard archers" - the kind of "here is a list of options which will decide where the story goes next" So, if we can get past the straw man of saying I'm saying the game shouldn't react to you, we can move forward. When I said "choice and consequence are nice in cRPGs but aren't essential", I meant story choices and dialog choices. cRPGs existed for years before these became conventions, and even after games started experimenting with them it didn't become a norm until the late 90's You can have great cRPGs (Wizard's Crown, Knights of Legend, all the Gold Box games) without any real story choices and no dialog choices. So, what you took as me being patronizing to you was really me trying to clarify that I meant that story and dialog choices aren't essential for a cRPG. I was responding to a bunch of people, generally, but two people specifically - 1: to Shadenuat, explaining that I understood that the medium was video games and that video games need player input, that I meant choices for story and dialog weren't necessary for a cRPG, and that you still had reactions to player choices in a game, using the medium, without having to have story and dialog choices.... that's a ramble, but largely, I was describing C&C to Shadenuat, whom probably DOES know what it means (or might not) but I meant to show I knew the difference and was speaking on one and not the other. 2: to jarpie, responding to How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, by saying that cRPGs don't need story and dialog choices to be good or to be cRPGs at all. Two people I was responding too. Showing two people I was making a clear distinction, and that when I said "reaction", the context was choice and consequenco player reactions, not all the ways a game can react to player input. Not insulting either of you. ... And now, will you accept that or add "I was snarkly patronizing you" to the list of "truths" about me - like my BioWare advocacy, my demanding romance mini-games, and my hating your freedoms?

I am surprised, considering how much BioWare bashing is done and how much they blame BioWare for all that is bad in cRPG's. There are many things that BioWare has created and pushed that I don't agree with, and people here now seem to be supporting it as strongly as people at BSN. That cRPGs are stories first. Story is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree, but BioWare champions this concept That cRPGs are about choice and consequence. Choice and consequence is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree, but BioWare champions this That cRPGs are about creating one character, a game writer's character that you help shape but it isn't yours. No creating a party - you recruit companions. cRPGs don't have to be this way, I can play it and enjoy it but it's not necessary and not my favorite. But it's BioWare's model and now seems to be "the way." I'm getting it both barrels right now and it is hilarious. I'm now simultaneously too old school AND a huge fan of BioWare ruining cRPGs. It's getting to the point I should break out the popcorn.

Sylvius, isn't it amazing? I mean, you expect this kind of push back from Upsettingshorts and others defending the direction BioWare had taken with games like Dragon Age 2 - you wouldn't expect people backing Obsidian and "old school" cRPG's in the IE model (from leads who love games like Wasteland and Fallout or created games like Fallout and ToEE) to be arguing for more graphics, more voice, more cinematics, and less player control over their characters. I guess I was wrong - the BSN was already here.

I'll try and address as much as possible in one post - and that means not hitting most of what people are saying, as that'd be nigh impossible. I'll do my best to, *ahem*, know what to show and what to leave to the imagination. If you're using a game as your deliverer of story, you should know your tools of trade and make the best out of them. I think *that* is a sign of good story-teller. I think a major problem here is context, once more. "Choice and consequence" is a term for games that means something kind of specific. Clearly any video game lets you make "choices" if you want to delve into semantics - in Space Invaders, do you move the cannon left or right, do you fire now or wait a second then fire - with consequences being do you get hit by the enemy fire or survive, and does your shot hit or miss. But for role-playing games it tends to mean story and world changing choices... not just which load out of weapons you have or do you dodge left or right. So, clearly, in a game you need to have reactivity to the player's actions - else you might as well watch a movie passively. But when I say "choice and consequences" (and I think when most devs talk about it) they mean "player decides to save NPC A or NPC B, or player decides to join faction A or faction B, or player gives resources to the town guard swordsmen or to the town guard archers" - the kind of "here is a list of options which will decide where the story goes next" So, if we can get past the straw man of saying I'm saying the game shouldn't react to you, we can move forward. When I said "choice and consequence are nice in cRPGs but aren't essential", I meant story choices and dialog choices. cRPGs existed for years before these became conventions, and even after games started experimenting with them it didn't become a norm until the late 90's You can have great cRPGs (Wizard's Crown, Knights of Legend, all the Gold Box games) without any real story choices and no dialog choices. I was going to try and comment on what you were saying, but that last bit you've lost me. Wasteland is one of my favorite games ever, if not my favorite game period. More graphics and better sound don't make a game for me... just like expensive special effects don't make a movie better for me, just like color and glossy paper don't make a comic book better for me. Sorry, we are just going to disagree on this point. The technology behind Wasteland could be improved, but the game design is stellar. I also think you have no idea what the gutter is or what Scot McCloud is talking about - so I suggest your read Understanding Comics. Yes, I can. Your credibility, already at what I would consider rock bottom, really tries to dig to new depths with every inaccurate ad hominem you throw my way. "Fanfiction writer" - either you are just trying to insult me (manning up again, as clearly to you that means attacking others baselessly), or you have no idea what a fan-fiction writer is. I do know that you have zero grasp on my knowledge and education, but continue to cast aspersions as if you have some secret inside information on who I am. This is becoming kind of fun at this point - what libel will you toss my way next? That I hate your freedoms? And those are not called plot devices. You can come up with your own definitions if you want, but don't expect people to take you seriously. Plot devices only exist to move the story forward and are not important in and of themselves. Please, go pick up a good beginners book on writing and learn about what you wish to discuss before exposing your ignorance and poor grasp of things to everyone. Better yet - public service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_device - A plot device is an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story, or alternatively to overcome some difficulty in the plot. A contrived or arbitrary plot device may annoy or confuse the reader, causing a loss of the suspension of disbelief. However a well-crafted plot device, or one that emerges naturally from the setting or characters of the story, may be entirely accepted, or may even be unnoticed by the audience. MacGuffin, Flashing Arrow, Deus Ex Machina, Framed Storytelling - plot devices are not part of the story, though skillfully can be weaved in, and exist often when a writer needs to move the story from point A to point B but the progression isn't natural The Master of Bones grabbing Morte, forcing you to go talk to him so he can give you a metric ton of exposition - that's a plot device. Annah and Falls From Grace having a rivalry (largely one sided) over Nameless One's attentions is not a plot device as it doesn't move the story forward - it can happen at any point. You can get overly broad, and start saying that a villain or a piece of exposition is a plot device - and, here's the tricky part, they CAN be - but if they are important parts of the story as opposed to inserted by the author to get from point A to point B, calling them plot devices is a bit of a misnomer. But enough on that... if I'm going to be a teacher, I want to get paid. Ah, still pulling that one out. You failed to say I'm desperate for romance mini-games, too. It's fun to attribute things to people that aren't true, right? I'd expect that from a rabid Michael Bay fan. How many times have you watched Bad Boys 2? And now anyone's opinion that you disagree with isn't worthwhile? You're the king of the thread now? From now on, all posts must come with Kenup's personal (and, of course, absolutely objective) seal of "worthwhileness!" Yes, I can.

I haven't actually seen anyone pre-judging anyone in the thread, but I guess I've not been following THAT closely.

Not exactly. This part of what I said is important - "what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show" Some parts of the game's story need to be shown a specific way. Important scenes, important reactions from NPCs.... when something vital to the theme or plot of the game happens, the player needs to make a choice (if a choice is offered, but we are talking role-playing here and not cut-scene exposition I assume) and the game needs to react to that choice. But what reaction should be shown? Another part of this point on "gutter" or "left to the imagination" is that the game design shouldn't force decisions on the player's character or force reactions on the player's character. Dragon Age 2 is a horribly bad example of this done wrong - with all the auto-dialog and paraphrasing. Ostensibly Hawke is supposed to be your character, but there are many instances where Hawke is prescripted to react certain ways no matter what you've done in the game up to that point. This is bad. The reactions should be on the NPC's (characters outside the players control for personality, background and backstory, etc.) but not from the PC. The world should react to what you do, NPCs (including companions you didn't design) should react to you... but the game shouldn't prescript your reactions. Now, before you mention it, yes, there will be a limited number of dialog options to choose from. And maybe none of them fit exactly your character you thought of when you created the character at the start... but that's the limitation of a cRPG, and you still get to choose what best fits. It's not a script with some optional versions of what you can say or how you say it (ugh, unless, again, it's Dragon Age 2.) Sometimes what happens after you make a decision needs to be shown to you. But sometimes it is better to have a vague reference and let your mind concoct the full ramifications to suit your views of the story. The more the game can be made the player's own, the more the player tends to be immersed and tends to enjoy it more. But its not about the game, or the story, not reacting at all. It CAN be, as I have tons of fun with games where the story and NPCs really don't change based on your actions (Gold Box games, Bard's Tales series, etc.) Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential. I don't think you are trying to use reactivity as a red herring, but for the point of creating your own character, it is one. Here's where I start to diverge from Sylvius on things... I adapt my character to the game I'm playing and accept the limitations of the cRPG format. He is much deeper into his character, his way, and the game can be wrong. But, going off of what I said earlier, the game should NOT give motivation to your actions unless it solicits you, the player, for what your motivation is. Reasoning for what choices your character makes? Often best left to the player's imagination. It's far too late for me to start looking for this kind of thing, but I know several Obsidian devs have commented on "creating and playing your own character" and given very similar (if not to the detail and focus on the "gutter" point) as to what I'm saying. The cRPG game that lets you make your own character should let you play you own character - this is a big reason many players prefer silent protagonists. Not everyone, but many. Almost all Obsidian games (and Black Isle Studios games) play very well this way. The biggest exceptions are Alpha Protocol and possibly Planescape: Torment. Especially games like the Icewind Dales, the Fallouts, and Storm of Zehir.

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. Good point. There's also the shift history took awhile back to stop looking at individuals of influence and instead focusing on "the common man" which lead to whole different ways of writing about history and downplaying individuals while focusing on events and movements and cultures and such.

While you can legitimately be role-playing by using a pre-created character... traditionally, role-playing games are intended for you to make your own character - not just stats, but personality and background - and you play the character how you believe your character would react based on what you create. "writer's job", "don't make your own", "lead actor" - I think maybe you want to play the BioWare games. They are the ones who love the preset protagonists right now. Middle school English teacher's advice to middle school students. Yep, they give you the secret keys to writing at that point. Romance is not always a plot device. A plot device is "an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story" - a good example of this is the MacGuffin (the case in Pulp Fiction or Ronin, the titular bird statue in The Maltese Falcon, the Ankaran Sarcophagus in Bloodlines.) The romance in Casablanca is the story, not a plot device. The romance in Age of Innocence, in Gone With The Wind, in Titanic (where the Heart of the Ocean is another MacGuffin,) in An Affair to Remember, in Somewhere in Time, heck, in Demolition Man - they are either THE story, or a side story. You do not understand what a plot device is if you think that anything "big" written into a story is one. Most things in a story are NOT plot devices.

Found something of use for this thread - - http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer

The difference between jarpie's characters and yours is that yours are completely disconnected from the game. If neither the gameworld or other players/npcs react to your PC's actions/traits/etc they might as well not exist. Any bits of story that are implied, any character reactions or backstory or events not shown on the screen are all in your head. Your imagination is what makes games and stories work. As Scott McCloud would tell you, the gutter is the most important part of sequential storytelling. And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours. The skilled story-teller (or cRPG designer) is the one who knows what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show. Chris Avellone understands this well. Look at him go into detail designing ONE character for Wasteland. ONE. http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/1/entry-164-wasteland-1-and-that-old-school-skill-set-symphony/ The game is NOT written to provide scripted responses to his character design. It's not even going to give him a "biography" box to type some of that in. Why must this "might as well not exist"? Why can't the stuff in your head be just as much fund as the stuff on the screen? The gutter is the most important part.

Atheist is not believing god (or gods) exist. I think what we are looking for, in a fantasy setting with a god (or god-like) being(s) would be a non-worshiper. Or you could be twisting on the semantics of "believing in" something. A person can say "I don't believe in the government" or "I don't believe in Christianity" while fully accepting that government or Christianity exists.

I almost always create unique names for my characters. I almost never even make passing references to existing pop culture or literature in my names. I like creating whole characters to play, not play myself.

I did. Because my previous example had be the Avatar Trilogy (Times of Trouble), and your response had been that that had been a special one-off that should be used as an example because the gods were forced into avatars and Lord Ao specifically did not allow them to retreat to their home planes to heal. So I stuck on that point and showed that many FR gods had died. I specifically looked for a list of FR deities, so of course I absolutely noticed that. But thanks for pointing out the obvious. And for moving the goal posts.

TSR specifically does not give the Lady of Pain stats in the Planescape Campaign setting (or in later materials) to address the first point; they also specifically point out to DMs that the Lady of Pain should be treated as unchallengeable to address the second point and players doing so should be killed. That does solve that for the setting, yep. I've never read Planescape stuff so I didn't know that. And yet... doesn't that just confirm my defending Cultist's point that BIS couldn't allow the PC to kill LoP due to, you know, fiat by TSR/WotC?

No apologies necessary. Relevant and very interesting. Thank you.

Nowhere near the same thing. In the "Time of Troubles" the Gods were forced into their Avatar forms. Avatars are just really freakin powerful mortal bodies, they do not have their full power in those forms. Also as a special rule in that time period when the gods died in their Avatar forms they were not allowed to return to their true realms, they were forced into true mortal death. That is why so many of them died, they were forced into mortal shells. This was done by the High God Ao also, not some silly mortal plot. Fighting the Lady of Pain in Sigil would have been the equivalent of going to the top of Yggdrasil the World Tree and calling out Odin. You were fighting a Greater God (aka one of the most powerful beings in the D&D universe) and you were doing it in their own territory/plane of existence. By D&D rules that makes the Lady of Pain when inside Sigil literally omnipotent in so far as the cities boundaries. She could know all, see all, and do all and kill you with absolutely no effort. Not even a finger twitch would have been needed. Not quite the same thing as killing an Avatar stuck on their own in the middle of nowhere with no one to back them up or any resources to call on. Avatars died all the time in the D&D worlds in fact, it is just normally the God would just lose a small part of their power and that would be that. The Time of Troubles was a VERY special circumstance, hence it's name. Other gods died in D&D FR outside the Times of Trouble as well. and there are two general rules in D&D, regardless of edition - 1 - if it has stats, and hit points, you can kill it 2 - whatever the DM allows you to do, you can do If you haven't looked at them in awhile, or never have, read a DMG and a Deities and Demigods or Manual of the Planes and see that there are rules for players to kill gods. Permanently. EDIT - or just go read here for a list of dead FR deities and realize that most of that list did not die in the Times of Trouble - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Forgotten_Realms_deities#Dead_deities