Jump to content

gglorious

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

About gglorious

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. 10/10, would read again. What a way to appease romance supporters. Be careful what you wish for, eh? Honestly, this thread has been a bit of a reminder of the importance of emoticons. Although to be fair, there have been worse romance mods made for BG2.... not to mention any names.
  2. Hello, I know this is jumping the gun given that the game doesn't have all of the expansion packs, and given that a modding framework hasn't been devised yet(and may be difficult given certain design choices). However, I know that a lot of people have wanted romantic options in the game given the lengthy romance threads, and it seems likely that if romances will exist in Pillars of Eternity, that modders will have to add them at some point. Because of this, it seems reasonable to maybe start thinking on the groundwork of this, particularly the idea of modding a Durance romance. After all, Durance has a lot of the qualities needed for an interesting romance: complicated emotions, deep internal struggle, passion, you name it. There has never been a character more ready for romance in any IE style game in history than Durance(Look at all of the problems the BG2 chicks and Anomen had). Here's what I'm thinking: Requirements: -Female (I'm getting more of a traditionalist vibe from him) -Orlan (obviously) -Priestess of Eothas (again, obviously) Major themes would likely be his deep abiding love of Magran, and his sense of guilt at killing Eothas, where the romantic protagonist helps Durance overcome these feelings and find peace in switching over to becoming a priest of Eothas(I'm not sure how hard that'd be to change, or whether gameplay-rp separation would be necessary). Obviously any suggestions would be helpful. (My apologies if this is the wrong forum)
  3. Ok, in many worlds, divine beings are classified very straight-forwardly as gods in a pantheon. They all recognize the existence of the other gods, and they are all very substantially similar. They all belong to the same kind of theological structure. My thinking on this is why not move away from that kind of model and into variations in deity shape, size, nature, and so on. So, let's just imagine One of Many as a god. One of Many is viable a divine concept, but is also moving away from too much focus on 1 person = 1 divine. Another possible model to consider in variation is the Trinity in Christian theology. The trinity is the notion of 3 divine persons in one deity. Unlike One of Many, it's often presented as something that really cannot be understood, and the nature is perplexing in certain ways where One of Many likely is not. Given that cultural clash is a theme(at least last I thought), how will religious clashing take place? Will there be monotheistic cultures running into polytheism and trying to deal with the objective nature of the other divines through self-deception? Will there be notions of spiritual and divine beings, the sort granting divine powers, that don't really HAVE the full power of godhood? So, could there be "spirits" that can be appealed to? Could there be divine beings that claim they are the substance of existence, they claim to be something so transcendent that it avoids the particular nature of a local deity? Can godless priests, like those who follow an ideal, like Fall From Grace in PS:T be acceptable or allowed? If so, would they be accepted, shunned, or what? What about the idea of unknown gods? They may simply hide, or maybe they belong to local groups that haven't entered the region yet, or maybe they just haven't entered the locality of the world yet. So, in Athens the shrine to the unknown god is pretty well known. Can this concept be applied to Project Eternity in some way shape or fashion? Should the idea of a solid pantheon, with unity and all the rest really be the agenda? It may be desirable to give a solid set of religious notions priests created by players have to accept for roleplay immersion, but perhaps not for the world.
  4. Ok, so the recent kickstarter update mentioned that the designers are considering the religious make-up of the world. Well, I want theology. I think the Dragon Age universe did a pretty good job of having some theological framework within it. At least with making the chantry unique and distinct and somewhat fleshed out.(Though mostly as kind of a variant of Christianity) Planescape arguably is similar in being very theological. Well, I think theology makes some sense for religion. Maybe not EVERY religious notion having a clearly defined theology to it, but certainly that individuals are going to develop theologies, philosophical theologies, and so on for understanding the world, and that these can/do have some impact given that religions are true in this world. I think that priests and paladins and explicitly religious figures should actually express explicitly religious beliefs, and theological notions native to their religion, so that they seem like they are really people dedicated to this divinity. I think that a lot of effort should be on either matching the real world nature of religion in a highly devout society(which this would likely be given that gods exist) or if twisting it, that these twists make sense(gods being real and impacting the world in easily measurable ways makes a difference). This may require curtailing the # of religious groups somewhat. Also, when considering how to set up gods, I would like consideration for the following notions: mysticism, spiritualism, issues of divinity and tribal identity, syncretism, church politics, heresy, schisms, denominations, the relationship between individuals and the divine, theological disputes, etc. I mean, if gods are real, then theological disputes may very well be the same kind of thing as we have for political disputes. I'm sure these are all thought about already. However, I'm definitely pushing for depth. I mean, I think the game is better modelling itself after BG2, but I think that in this area, PS:Torment is the ideal role model. This may already be the understanding, but I really do want this as the push with religion.
  5. Hunh, well, following up with this: http://forums.obsidi...311#entry725311 I would rather have Sawyer's implementation than nothing at all. I think romances add to the game, by adding a layer of depth and integration, as people do end up caring about the romance and it's path, so the idea of creating a mind-screw romance would itself be interesting. Amusingly BG2's romances were full of all sorts of crap, but very popular. So, Viconia kept on freaking out about her emotional problems. Aerie whined all of the time. Jaheira was freshly widowed. But they were very liked just the same. Obviously literally recreating that isn't desirable, but there is flexibility in what people will want or tolerate.(Even though the fact they all threw themselves at you was a bit ridiculous) I would like a love that actually succeeded, but why not failure? Most romantic efforts end in failure. I mean, heck, why not just create a romance so that way at some point in the game there's a ****ty break-up involved?(maybe even a *really* ****ty break-up) Adventurers are probably not the most stable individuals. Actually getting someone to open up like that in a time of danger may not really be a matter of them throwing themselves at you or vice versa. I also kind of agree with him on the coitus... I mean, one of the things I kind of liked about the Aerie romance was it actually being the wrong time for her to go off and do that. I mean, imagined sex really isn't driving me on the romance, even though I find romance with chastity vows odd as well. So, sure, romantic love is an old trope, but it's a very popular one. If you listen to popular music people are basically obsessed with some variant of it. So, because it's a very deeply popular theme, I would think it would be good and fruitful to use, even to subvert and twist and corrupt in a thousand ways. I mean, deeply seated tropes and notions, ones with a lot of appeal, probably have a lot of room to play with. It could be especially amusing because a romance is what some part of the crowd is asking for..... In any case, cost arguments are hard for me to evaluate. I can't see the game being broken because of a romance included. I also don't mind some degree of lock-out. I mean, in DAO, you're locked out of certain endings with Alistair if you don't pick a female human noble, and you can't even touch Anora unless you're a male human noble. I don't even see a problem with bizarre lock-outs, just so long as the romance isn't just a complete easter egg.(Note: I wouldn't mind an easter-egg romance, but it'd be a lot of content for only a few dedicated people to see)
  6. The only minigame I've really respected is the persuasion minigame in Deus Ex:HR. The others are just kind of boring, and just something that gets in my way. So, I don't think a minigame will add anything. Even that minigame was only good because it was clever and revealed more about the characters in the story, but it's not as good for a game that tends towards text.
  7. Right.... I acknowledged this: At the same time, if you look at the wiki, with quotes from devs at earlier points on the classes, you see things like this: "Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible" "And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close" "paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes" So, what is being said is "Fighters are going to tend to be REALLY GOOD at X" or "Fighters are weaker at Y than Rangers" not "Fighters can't do ranged combat". So, a class can take many different roles, but some classes may be inherently better at certain things.
  8. Ok, I recognize that we have a lot of different threads about individual classes or sets of classes. I'd think a major issue is really how each class fits into a role within a party. While the designers have expressed a desire to have flexibility enough where a party can be comprised entirely of one class, it's also been expressed that certain classes will naturally be stronger in certain areas than others. So, I think looking at the system from a bird's eye has some value. I'm going to provide a sketch of what I perceive as class tendencies and their natural roles, and others can add their feedback on how they'd like to see the roles develop: * Fighter: Best tank class. Many strong defense abilities. http://eternitywiki.com/Fighter * Barbarian: DPS Tank. "Rage" or equivalents increase damage output. Weaker defensive abilities than warrior http://eternitywiki.com/Barbarian * Paladin: Support tank. Moderate tanking. Provides buffs. Also provides area of effect damage. http://eternitywiki.com/Paladin * Ranger: Ranged support. Ranged DPS. Weak tanking. Skirmisher * Monk: Weak tank. Skirmisher. Possible light DPS? * Rogue: DPS. Skirmisher. Tactical combat using contraptions? http://eternitywiki.com/Rogue * Chanter: Moderate, passive buffs/debuffs. Versatile supporting abilities. http://eternitywiki.com/Chanter * Cipher: Primary crowd control. Charms to distract and disrupt enemy tactics? Possible secondary skills? http://eternitywiki.com/Cipher * Wizard: Ranged Area of Effect DPS. Moderate crowd-control? Weak tactical combat using contraptions? http://eternitywiki.com/Wizard * Priest: Strong buffs/debuffs. Possible weak/light combat? http://eternitywiki.com/Priest * Druid: Distraction through summons? Possible secondary skills? When the wiki has something, I've included it, but for rangers, monks, and druids, the wiki did not say very much directly about the class. I'm speculating that wizards are more DPS oriented, due to their roles in many other games(project eternity seems conventional in that sense), leaving druids to be a more likely option for summoning. With rangers it's the fighter description that suggests rangers are the strongest ranged class. Additionally, by putting this forward, I am not saying that wizard-tanks, or rogue-tanks are outside of consideration, only that the class will tend to guide a player towards certain builds. I think Obsidian seems to favor flexible classes that can fill many different roles, but also classes that tend towards certain roles. Even if they had another idea, this also seems the most reasonable approach to class builds, to seek to allow a rogue-tank, but to tend to specialize a rogue's talents elsewhere. So, here's what I'm seeing from the current class system: 1) More caster variations than IE. IE tended to only have 2 different types of casters: divine or arcane, where divine types were interchangeable, and arcane types were interchangeable. PE seems likely to have 4 different types of casters: Druids, Ciphers, Wizards, and Priests, each of which going down a different pathway. 2) Because there are too many casters, this also suggests that PE casters are not as obligatory as IE games. So in IE, it's harder to play through without an arcane caster and a divine caster in your party, and it's expected you'll have both. We can't be expected to have 4 caster classes. So, this suggests a vision of different compositions of spell-casters. And maybe a stronger role for the Bard as the guy who can handle more cross-class casting. 3) Possible better specialization than IE? So, in an IE game, a Paladin really only seems different from a Warrior because he can wield a Holy Avenger sword. In this case, specializations seem more likely to be more deeply rooted in the build. 4) More varied combat styles? Because specialization is better, classes are to be treated as more interchangeable, combat is better because there are different ways it can be run. Different buffers to use. Different distractions to use. Different tanking methods. Etc. I dunno, anybody else have thoughts about party builds?
  9. It's not a big deal either way to me. So long as it's not to a degree where it is annoying, I'm fine with it. So, in NWN Hordes of the Underdark, Cania had the environmental hazard of being so cold that it would harm the party. There were two options: either special fires needed to be started, or it would just have to be endured. That's fine. It's not too bothersome. It's not desired per se, but it's not incredibly irritating, so it's fine. If it's fitting or desirable on the part of designers to include an environmental hazard in the area, then they can do so, just so long as this hazard isn't the hugest distraction to the party.
  10. This sounds more like an annoyance than anything else. Inventory management is the part of playing an RPG game that I care the least about. I'm absolutely fine with making sure my characters have the best swords, as that's not a huge commitment. I can be convinced that arrows and healing potions are important for me to have a large stockpile of. Asking me to keep up with anything beyond this is just annoying though, as it simply means that I have to spend time thinking about whether my mage has sufficient mandrake roots and I don't want to play "Inventory Management Quest". I mean, this really seems like what's actually desired is that instead of having one item(like a "resurrection focus"), we have to have a bunch of assorted items that may not be as easily found together, or may be differently served by different merchants, making the issue an annoyance as then I have to focus on finding the dragon scales and mandrake roots in the sufficient quantities for the recipe, rather than just being able to solve my problem and move on. Here's what I'm going to say: If any system like this is implemented, I strongly feel the need for it to be optional. Maybe you save money by crafting, BUT other people just can opt out somehow and avoid all of the hassle.
  11. I don't know yet. I've usually had my class dictated to me somewhat by non-combat roles that needed to be filled. Having a game where this isn't a factor I can use is pretty new to me, so I'll have to see what I think will be the most mechanically interesting class, and they haven't given enough information yet. Possibly Cipher though.
  12. I agree with this concern. That's why I'd push for a dungeon of this size to be very supernatural in it's workings. So, "magic causes it" can resolve a lot of these problems, even without seeming too ad hoc. If the demon or magical snarl is powerful enough, then anything could result from it. Also, the supernatural often desires mortal interaction, so it will make itself habitable in certain senses while still dangerous. So, it will have sufficient air, but a lot of other horrible creatures will result from it existing. I think a plausible solution could be to have earlier levels be more moderate and within the more acceptable limits of dungeons with some horror undercurrents. So, Irenicus's dungeon in BG2 is a horror dungeon to some extent, but it isn't necessarily overwhelming. And traditional dungeons have plenty of room to have horrifying elements without being too striking or depressing, by having the horror be a theme or undercurrent. Additionally, earlier levels can hint at something being wrong with subtle cues(you loot a bookshelf and all of the books are on dying, but you wouldn't know unless you're the kind to actually read the books), or inconsistencies, or world inconsistencies(how did i move from a cave into a monastery? Why is there a forest underground? what the heck IS this place I am now? etc), or bizarre recurrences. So, if you see the same adventuring party across several levels, and each time they have forgotten that they saw you, or even appear to be alive after you killed them on a higher level, or show radical psychological shifts across instances, that indicates something is very wrong, but it's only creepy, not terror or depression. Players are led to wonder what's going wrong, but they aren't necessarily scared, just a bit creeped out. Around the bottom, I'd think purer horror would be good. The story is coming to a close and it needs to be more intense to be memorable. Also, whatever is wrong is a big issue. So, the subtlety fades away into blatantly disturbing traits. We'd expect the last levels to be purer in whatever notion the dungeon is representing. I actually strongly agree! That's another strength I see with a psychological horror. Because the idea is to be psychological, it's desirable to find lots of characters to have sub-plots with, because they draw you into the horror story. And the sub-plots themselves can involve recurrences on several levels, so on level 2, you might encounter a dwarven merchant with his wife who is searching for his lost memento. On the 7th level he's searching for his wife. On the 12 level, he lost his wife again, but this time when you find her she ends up being an undead abomination and a semi-difficult boss, and when you tell him the bad news, he accuses you of murdering her and tries to kill you. The dwarf doesn't actually have to be real for you to have a real interaction with him. And while some of the characters you interact with there can actually end up being real and you end up saving them, a lot of them could just be fictions by the magic of that place to pull you into the story and the world of the dungeon. The issue being that if you're in hell, you don't have a lot of reason to believe you'll find real people. You'd expect to run into demons. If you're in a crypt, you'd expect to mostly run into undead, and undead often don't elicit the same degree of psychological response. And in either case, if you ever ran into a real person, there would be a realism issue because it's a dungeon and those don't have a lot of food or air. In horror, maybe these people are real people who were called to this place, maybe they're fake, but both are real possibilities. ------------------------------- I mean, I think there are other possibilities: 1) You''re travelling into an underground tunnel. This tunnel leads to an underground city that's still populated by the undead and perhaps whatever killed the original inhabitants. The first few levels are the tunnel, which could have been built by any group. Then you get to the city, which may have been built by an earlier race of underground dwarves, and then the rest of the dungeon is exploring that city. Lots of undead, as the people died terribly, a few underground monsters, magical defenses built by the dwarves, etc. The problem I see is the realism in the oxygen, and the difficulty in creating a lot of variation. 2) A burrowing demon has emerged. The first few levels are the crypt where the demon started burrowing. Maybe some undead. Then there are cave levels where the demon's burrowing has fully created these levels. Maybe some creatures drawn by the demon exist here. Maybe weaker demons. Then you may run into an underground ruin, and this ruin contains a lot of the underground ruin issues. Then you finally get to the hell levels, closest to where the demon is. 3) A magical snarl of some form has been spotted due to a magical ritual of extreme power that went haywire. It's a portal found somewhere, maybe a wizard's tower. The first levels may be the earlier parts of the wizard's tower. Then you enter the portal, and the levels now have all of the variation of like Planescape. You could portal into a hell level. You could portal into a fae level. You could portal into an earth level. The driving issue is that something has disrupted the magical workings of supernature such that you have this interconnection between different planes and dimensions and the adventuring party has the role of exploring this supernatural realm, and of solving the magical anomaly so that way it doesn't undermine the workings of reality. It could support a lot more social interactions, sub-plots and the rest than a normal dungeon because it's not *really* a dungeon so much as a set of interconnected supernatural realms that the players find themselves travelling through. 4) Hell. It's exactly as it sounds. The players go to hell. They fight all sorts of varied demons and demon worshipers and supernatural magic. The levels of hell are very different, some of them even seeming superficially heavenly. Continuity of ideas is preserved across the dungeon as it's all hell. Given that hell is pretty hostile though, it may be hard to form real connections to it or sub-plots worth caring about. However, it also can support a lot of variation. I just think horror is a lot better. The first two don't sound as open to creativity as horror could. The magical snarl could suffer from simply being a bunch of unconnected dungeon experiences that happen to be connected, rather than something with an ongoing theme. The fourth is a pretty solid competitor, but I don't think it will be the same emotional experience on many levels. All of them can allow for some sense and internal consistency.
  13. I think this is a cool idea. It doesn't have to be literally every party member, but certainly having a good number change their perspectives on something would be nice. I don't think it should be automatic, like "You have influence therefore this character thinks like you now". Instead, it should be dialogue and personality driven. Who knows? Maybe some character will start to be LESS like you by your influence on him(contrarian streak?), and you become some sort of argument buddy with him than a mentor. I mean, variations can be fun.
  14. I feel like this debate is really kind of empty. Saying something is more of a science fiction theme isn't to say that it's invalid for fantasy, only that it's less of a thematic fit in certain ways. That doesn't restrict creativity, boundaries are in some sense needed for creativity, as creativity needs to be able to play with boundaries and violate them. Without the boundary, there isn't the play or the violation. Kind of like with tropes, without a trope, you can't subvert it, and a subverted trope or a lampshaded trope is more interesting than no trope. Sometimes, you do want to play the trope straight though, as it provides more of what you desire. So, right, I'm sure there are tons of fantasy worlds with psionics, and I'm sure there are tons of sci fi worlds with magic. There are lots of sci fi worlds with sword fighting as well. I mean, the variations are endless. It doesn't change the generalities and associations people will often make. And it's pretty much correct that psionics is less popular in fantasy, and very popular in sci fi, and that magic is very popular in fantasy and not as popular in science fiction, so... a generalization can be made, and a perception of themes. Especially given that the differences in acceptance are likely partly driven by background concepts.
  15. I don't think classes have a clear definition. Each class is a vague family of concepts that are different enough from other concepts to be fruitfully cut away. So, in one system, it may make sense to combine barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers into one class, but others may break it out more. Some will break it out further, with prestige classes and additional base classes. It's entirely possible that some of these divisions will conflict somewhat. So, in DAO, ranger was a rogue subtype, but in most other cases, ranger is considered more of a warrior subtype. The point of a class is to set up flavor and developmental tendencies for the class and structure the world into categories desirable for the world-builder to work with. So, paladins don't NEED to exist, but it makes the idea of "holy warrior" easier to put together both by players and beings within the larger world and it's a concept that can be worked with. It's kind of like an authorial tendency, so one author may gloss over details about the scenery, but another could really focus on that, and even elevate that into an important plot point. So, if you notice, in IE games, Paladins are very often given special plot focuses, so Carsomyr, the best sword in BG2 is a Paladin sword. One of the hardest battles in IWD2 is a Paladin battle. One of the faster ways to figure out something is wrong in IWD with a group of priests found is by having a Paladin(and they also get a special sword there too). And BG2 actually did a lot with class variation to make it really relevant, which was cool for replay, so each different class took a different place in the game world, with it's own different stronghold(thieves got a thieves guild, priests joined a temple, warriors got a keep, bards got a playhouse, etc)
×
×
  • Create New...