JFSOCC

Congrats Enoch, happy to read that your kid is back home. I should have internet by the 11th, my apartment is neat, I'm so happy to have my own place again. overjoyed really! after 2 years 2 months and one day living with my mother again, it was long overdue. Sweet independence! Of course still need a lot of stuff done in the house: Lights, privacy strips on the windows so no-one can watch me ****, a loft bed with desk underneath for the guest room (I have space for a guest room!) a room screen to divide the living room from my bedroom, a trash can, a laundry bin, shower curtain, a topper for my bed would be great but is wicked expensive and a bunch of other stuff... But moving is expensive, laying a laminated floor is expensive, plaster and paintjob was expensive too, so this will have to wait for later... But for now, I have my own place, I can rise when I want and shower as long as I please, I can invite people... and it's mine.

They billow

I'm glad we've talked this out

How do you guys keep up with this thread? it moves so quickly! Anyway, tomorrow I'm moving into my new apartment, which means it's unlikely I'll have access to the internet until that's connected, which should take about 2 weeks.

From wikipedia: It's often an auteur self-insert, but it doesn't have to be. The idea is that it is a character with no discernible flaws, except maybe those which are universally acceptable and unlikely to have a bearing on the plot, such as a fear of heights. OK, there are clearly a few misconceptions here. 1. Archetypes are great, for types, characters need to be deeper than that. An Arc can be many things, by the way, it doesn't mean a character has to become diametrically opposed to what he or she was. Nor does it have to be a positive. If you've seen Tropa de Elite, for instance, Matias' personality doesn't change greatly, but over the course of the film you do see him lose some naivité, change his attitude towards casual drug use and users to mirror that of his commander more, and ultimately at the conclusion, his willingness to kill even when it is morally questionable, completing his corruption. 2. I'm beginning to hate the heroes journey with a passion, it is ALL that is coming out of Hollywood these days. Here you have a great greek tragedy (Oldboy) and it gets turned into a simple revenge flick following the tropes of the heroes' journey (Oldboy remake) And I will never argue that every story needs to be one. But if you think tragedies have no character arcs, you are sadly mistaken. If you think there are no tropes and clichés for other story types, you are still sadly mistaken. The Heroes journey has its uses and it a good starting point for learning how to write characters, and I would never discount it, especially not for writing for role playing games. So only Arthur is a character, the rest are types. I haven't read TS Elliot's work, so I can't really comment on the portrayal of Merlin. Tell me, what ways is he interesting? Types can be interesting, but not to build a story around. Not all personages require arcs, but that's because not all are characters. Their families don't remain unchanged, actually. When the coffins are presented to these families they recognise their folly, as the closing words I don't disagree. I never said every single person in your story needs to be fleshed out. But Walter, Hank, Skyler and Jesse certainly did. I think we probably define characters differently. A character is as deep, nuanced, and changeable as a real person. A type is changeless and stale.

You keep saying I should read a book about narrative, but I'm trying to explain to you that my breadth of experience probably exceeds yours. I've read many crappy books, and some good ones. I've also watched a lot of film, both crappy and good. I'm not saying your experience doesn't count, I'm saying mine does. And it does, btw. Call me arrogant if you want but when it comes to literature I will be offended if someone calls into question whether or not I can distinguish quality from pulp. I don't like to use the word straw-man because it gets over-used, but you are using a straw-man argument if you say I'm advocating mary sue writing, which is absolutely the worst possible form of writing, and something I actively resent. Mary sue means good at everything, no noticeable flaws and a character whose strengths (and weaknesses) have little to do with his or her history or personality. And yes, Holmes and House are not that different. I don't think you'll hear me say otherwise. I liked the new Holmes (not so much season 3) because of the excellent acting of Benedict Cumberbatch and the modern take on his character. But it is still weak when you have no character development. Maybe you've misunderstood or misread what I posted, I'm not trying to tell you what I say is gospel, but there are some basic things you need to understand about characters before you can ignore them and write your own.

I paid 8k for an alienware in 2008. Don't, they're overpriced pieces of ****, customer support is hell, you'll end up with a broken machine and an empty wallet.

This is some of the worst nonsense I have ever read. Characters arcs will only ever work where the narrative demands the character to have an arc. Otherwise it is a disingenuous and pointless distraction that goes nowhere and desperately needs to be cut out. I am so sick of people demanding characters arcs where narratives do not demand it at all. How one note characters deal with a plot, or other characters deal with one note characters is more than enough dynamic for 90% of narratives and most shoehorned character arcs created due to awful claims such as yours are responsible for almost all bad character writing. Here's an example: House was good because House always did the same thing - he was an absolute **** and had the clout to back it up and all the dynamic this show needed was seeing the other one note characters deal with it. This show became awful when they started adding character arcs to it because someone just like you decided House needed a character arc, absolutely ruining the character and narrative dynamic in the progress. Seriously, go read anything on narrative construction and learn not to spout nonsense that you read on a fan fiction guide as fact. House is entertaining. But to say that there is any literary quality to that series is just plain pathetic. House is a type, not a character. I'm pretty damn sure I know more about narrative than you do. And I tend to hate fan fiction. But you don't want to be taught, that's fine, stay ignorant.

haha, go ahead, it's your money. BTW, I finished watching the playthrough of the full game, which took way less time than I expected, and my opinion of it has only decreased. Thief 4 is a failure. But please, don't listen to me. again, it's your money.

I would go about it differently when writing the plot. I would first pose the problem: (i'll use the one for a mod idea I have) A once powerful city is losing it's power and population as the lifeblood of the city, the artery of trade, the great river that sprang from the city has diminished and no longer reaches the coast. The city is now hard to reach and decaying. Now you have something you can work a story around. You don't even have to hit them over the head with it. The players are presented with the problem: a city in decay. How they reinvigorate the city is up to them, whether they choose to reinvigorate the city is also up to them. Many factions will have their own different approaches to saving the city (or it's valuable knowledge, or its people, etc) The player can choose to bolster trade relations, make the city worth visiting for unique goods or knowledge found nowhere else, or selfishly block the last food from coming in so you can sell it at a premium. The player can seek allies for the city to help with its survival, for a price of course... during the time travelling to, finding and exploring the city the player will encounter the results of the drought, and begin to understand the magnitude of the problem. Towns once along the trade river have fallen into ruins, the city on the coast where the player starts hasn't spoken to emissaries from the big city for months and is losing it's dominance to a more successful trading city further up the coast. A fertile countryside has turned to desert, ships are found in the desert sands, sandblasted and broken. Enclave towns (for those who like to explore) still exist but have been cut off from the outside world. (each of these towns might have their own solution to dealing with the drought, and offer hints to possible solutions for the big city) Once the significance of the issue becomes clear, players can investigate the problem. Is it a problem of access to the city? is the city's self-sufficiency at stake? Can the land be improved? Are there drought resistant crops? Do people need to be evacuated? why doesn't the river flow as much any more? Where does it come from? something changed there? Can we route another river? build or break a dam? do we move the flow underground to ensure less loss to evaporation? Maybe hire weather mages? Build a road and have it patrolled by the Knights of the Open Road? Move the city to a better location? Is the city worth saving? Maybe competitor cities will pay for the ransacking of the city? Point is you create a problem that has many possible solutions, most wildly different from the next, some not so different. Then you create the paths to finding these solutions. You lock some away for certain factions or classes, others you open to everyone. The benefit of this approach is that you can always add alternative solutions you hadn't thought of before. I think this is the only way to truly having meaningful choice in your game. It also allows for player failure as there would be different avenues of approach. 1. Create the situation 2. Think of as many ways to deal with it as possible, they don't have to be equal in any measure. 3. Let the player pick their path. You can have the same (or just a few) ending(s) and still have wildly different approaches in getting there. I'll repeat, this is the only way I think you could have meaningful choice.

You could give her an awakening? It wouldn't be the same character, but it would still be her history. This allows you to move away from your character where you want while still paying homage to her past. It allows you to write a more nuanced character while respecting what you've done with the character before. Why couldn't you write the same character in a more mature way? see it as editing your first draft, or as killing your darlings...

If Karen David can do her Liessa Dragonlady voice, I would immediately take her voiceset for my character.

Their answer to questions about modding tools elicited a similar responses from me.

I've been dying to get a companion who is intelligent and not annoying. (someone who actually has social skills) Someone I can have a serious discussion with and enjoy it. Loyal characters who question my choices and not my character, or at least question my choices before questioning my character.

I think you may learn to appreciate Picasso, but that would require an education first.

I've read the Malazan book of the fallen. It's not my type of fantasy at all. The pacing is terrible. The characters on screen too short to tell their characters. you're free to ignore my advice, but that will make you the fool, not me. Edit: the guy in the video is saying JK rowling did it better than anyone else? HAHAHAHAHA! what an idiot.

I think any literature professor will vehemently disagree with this. Which is why they aren't authors. Many are. I don't want to school you on the basics of writing characters on this forum. I may be an amateur at writing but I can distinguish between a good book and a bad one. Between plot driven stories and character driven stories. Strong characterization doesn't happen if you don't follow certain rules. And sure, sometimes rules can be broken, but it would better be for a damn good reason or you'll find your character lacking. There are too many fans of pulp, so when posting on these forums I try to be careful not to sound like too much like a snob. I guess I'm breaking that here but the ignorance of your statement is compelling me to. I'm not saying experimenting is bad, btw, but thinking about developing your character throughout a story with a beginning middle and end is a good way to start. You also have a lot of things you cannot do. You cannot make your character flawless, you can't always let your character win or get his way, things that might be obvious to you shouldn't always be obvious to your character, your character cannot do everything on his own. your audience needs to care about your characters adversity because of his role in it, that even counts for the dupe or unwitting fools. A character must have a reason for his behaviour and choices, and a reason for his skills and abilities. A character needs an arc. If a character is unchanging then it is a type. Someone who never moves on from the same thinking throughout the narrative is boring and predictable. You know what he'll do next, because he did it last time, and the time before. Leonard, Sheldon and Penny are never going to be different. They are types, you know their jokes before they make them, and chuckle by rote and laughing track. Francis Underwood faces different challenges of which most arise from his own choices. His is a complex character whose story has an arc. Katniss Everdeen is a type. She's good at everything she needs doing, all answers get thrown her way, she always succeeds. Any obstacle she faces offers leaves no lesson for her character. Ian Dunross's schemes succeed the consequences of his choices, they wouldn't have formed otherwise. He is great example of a good character and I recommend Noble House (and Tai Pan) (the books) there is a lot to think about when making a good character, and while you can vary from the norm, having a decent knowledge about them is where you begin.

So you follow MCA? God of Dialogue and companionship?

yeah, it's a coin toss on those forums. You can, as I've posted it in the topic there.

I've watched a playthrough partway through https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9MoLfABC7y6gq0raxVa1TGBnREZvMQKz In order to decide whether I wanted to buy it. I just really don't like what I see.

I guess I was wrong then. I still think it's absurd not to support laptop video cards.

I posted that picture here because I found it later and reflects what I've found. My post was my own written opinion.

right, this changes nothing on the fact that if my card got supported it would be able to run these games smoother, especially the games I should be able to run but can't