Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

mcmanusaur

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    601

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mcmanusaur

  1. mcmanusaur
    I think for me a lot of fantasy worlds inhabit an uncomfortable middle ground, attaining both "mundane" and "exceptional/supernatural" without ever becoming either fully realistic or truly fantastical. I'd equally love to see hyper-realistic simulationist RPGs set in fantasy settings but without any magic whatsoever, and a bizarre/outrageous/philosophical/psychedelic/unpredictable but also more thematically rich kind of RPG, where magic is something that happens to you rather than something that you do. Actually, the surreal dreamlike aspects of Assassin's Creed are one of the few things I like about that game (haven't played any beyond the first one). Either of those would be preferable to the trope-saturated standard "real world + fantasy races + generic superpowers + moral conflict" formula that seems to pervade most "fantasy" RPGs; it seems our imaginations are quite limited. Where's the Alice in Wonderland of the RPG genre?
  2. mcmanusaur
    Actually, if anything high magic settings have much more potential for grimdark than low magic ones, if we assume the distribution of magical power is symmetric: That is, "low magic" means "no one has strong magic" and not "everyone has strong magic except the players." But I digress. Personally, I've gotten rather sick of save-the-world-from-the-BBEG plots in RPGs: I find myself invested much more when victory means "This child gets to keep her mother" and not "This means the universe keeps continuing exactly the same as before." Hmmm... I'd be very curious to hear how you'd argue that high-magic has more potential for grimdarkness. I can see how the grey morality that often accompanies grimdark settings might not be as gratifying as a clear moral victory, but if anything BBEG's (assuming you mean Big Bad unambiguously Evil Guy) are closer to the latter, and I'm not sure that's directly related to the level of magic in a setting.
  3. mcmanusaur
    I like this method more than its most common alternatives, but I'd also like to see some fantasy RPGs take more exotic approaches toward magic; namely the idea that magic can be so reliably controlled by human(oids) is one trope that bores me. I agree that somewhere along the line magic begins to lose its sense of wonder, and perhaps that has a lot to do with the fact that it's employed as a means of providing characters with generic superpowers more often than it is as anything else more bizarre, chaotic, fantastical, or obscure. I almost have to wonder whether we're getting to the point where a mgically barren protagonist- or even the traditional sword and sorcery approach- is completely out of the question. Even all of the hybrid RPGs (Bioshock, Dishonored, etc.) these days have magic in some form or another. Would a fantasy setting that was "magical" in some capacity but that didn't allow the player to control magic just be seen as a complete sham? Maybe this seems like a huge contradicition, but I think I'd love to have an RPG set in an extra bizarre, unpredictable, and even psychedelic setting, but with less controllable magic than your average fantasy setting. That seems like a world I could get lost in, and maybe the thrill of being able to shoot fireballs out of your palms would just be unnecessary given how fantasical and wacky the setting was.
  4. mcmanusaur
    I assume you mean the narrative themes, so kind of like a plot device? Are we talking about themes/motifs other than "magic" itself (in which case I could agree)? I guess for me a lot of the time in fantasy occurrences of magic serve to accomplish thematically little more than saying "this is a world where super cool/magical/extraordinary/exceptional stuff happens". In your example, which themes do you think magic facilitates, out of curiosity?
  5. mcmanusaur
    This is true of course, and the decision process could go either way here; a setting creator could have a specific tone in mind and base the magic level on that, or decide to include little magic and from that extrapolate a grimdark tone. At any rate, part of what I mean to ask is whether people have a preference between these two, since magic ostensibly must be uniform throughout a particular setting.
  6. mcmanusaur
    This is just a poll to see what people's general preferences are in terms of how much "magic" is necessary in the fantasy genre, and whether certain forms of magic are preferred to others. As such, the poll questions do not directly pertain to wishes or expectations to Project Eternity, but I feel it would be worthwhile to survey the community anyway; the results should prompt interesting discussion regarding Project Eternity. I had to rush the poll a bit, but hopefully it suffices.
  7. mcmanusaur
    Hmmm... I'll remain open-minded toward such "choke points" in Project Eternity, but the understandable notion that all supernatural plot events must irrevocably change the world is just yet another reason why I'm increasingly liking the sound of an RPG sans magic. "But how could a mundane and unexceptional situation possibly be interesting?" Well this isn't a place for me to rant about magic, so I'll leave it at that.
  8. mcmanusaur
    Not sure what direction this thread is taking, as I've only read the first page, but I like a few others am a bit hesitant in regard to this kind of system. This is just as clear a case of "simulationist" vs. "gamist" as you'll find, but I'd prefer a system that tried to model physical and mental attributes in some sort of meaningfully realistic over this kind of gamist-based system. Still, the resulting lack of dump stats does sound nice, but I'm not convinced that there aren't other ways to prevent them that doesn't detract from how descriptive attributes are (when all you have is "power", "precision", "defense", etc., I'd contend that you lose a fair bit of characterization).
  9. mcmanusaur
    I like the sound of what the OP is saying, but I must also agree with the replies that (1) leveling up is precisely that staircase progression he suggests, and (2) it may not be completely realistic to claim that progression naturally occurs in short bursts. In regards to the first, it can become a question of how tall we want each "stair" to be, which is probably related to the total number of stairs that must be climbed; in other words, would you rather climb taller stairs that were fewer in number, or shorter stairs that were greater in number? Keep in mind that the farther one goes toward the latter option, one begins to approximate a linear progression (a million tiny steps might as well be a diagonal slope). Regarding the second issue, I think that a lot depends on the nature- active or passive- of the "experience" in whatever progression we are discussing. For lack of any better example, evolution is a somewhat passive process, at least as far as the individual organisms are concerned, and it tends to occur along a relatively smooth trajectory rather than having new species poofing into existence over a couple generations. I suppose the same might be said of any process where progression only occurs through the "passive" repetition of certain actions, which is the abstraction of skills that many RPGs seem to favor. This probably makes sense for skills based on muscle memory and mental conditioning, but for those skills that require a more "active" approach to learning this kind of trajectory may not be appropriate. Some skills that focus more on problem-solving and other higher cognitive processes might be better modeled as jagged staircases, as tutelage and research could conceivably lead to sudden revelations/realizations of new knowledge, however most RPGs tend to discount this "knowledge" component of progression in favor of the more gradual and frequent rewards of linear "experience".
  10. mcmanusaur
    You know, I'm not sure whether Obsidian has announced yet just how buggy they intend Project Eternity to be... I'm assuming they'll go for "just buggy enough that you sporadically clench your fist in rage, but not so buggy that you can justify leaving the game". Seriously though, the release schedule for crowdfunded games like Project Eternity isn't set by a draconian publisher in the same manner as most other games, and I think that will solve a the majority of this problem.
  11. mcmanusaur
    Herp derp. I guess we've established that this feature doesn't appeal to obsessive-compulsively optimizing powergamers, for some reason that has yet to be articulated in an argument that doesn't rely on misguided analogies, incongruent appeals to tradition, black-and-white false dichotomies, or incessant hyperbole. But then again, my only real argument is that "it makes sense", but quite apparently the locus of our disagreement is over the question of whether the game world has license to make sense in a manner that doesn't facilitate a powergaming playstyle. Ninja'd.
  12. mcmanusaur
    Inb4counterargumentthatregionalpricingisdifferentfromthosethingsbecauseit'sbeenestablishedthatgamingthoseothermechanicsisfun,thusimplyingthatweshouldnevertrychanginganything.
  13. mcmanusaur
    I'm not opposed to what either of the two posts above suggest. I guess it cuts out a bit of the information gathering stage, which might otherwise require research or asking around about rumors, but I think that ultimately for most worthwhile objectives (like with the criminal organization) you will end up interacting with an NPC at some point anyway, and thus it's not that radical a change. I'm still hesitant about the idea of entering any random wilderness zone and gaining a journal entry about how "legend has it that [epic loot] is stashed away in [nearby dungeon]"; maybe I just tend to play a rather unheroic character, but I'm not sure I could justify subjecting myself and my party to immense personal risk over some myths of treasure (notwithstanding the fact that in a game such myths always turn out to be true). Now, if the motivations of a particular NPC resonated with me and I wanted to help them, or if I needed to acquire favor or leverage- or anything more interesting than generic loot- from a powerful NPC, then perhaps I could see marching off to that infested hole in the ground. I realize there are some people who find dungeon crawling fun and rewarding in and of itself, but giving things some interpersonal context can make it more appealing for players who find that aspect of the game less fulfilling. So yes, a pro-active protagonist isn't inherently bad, as long as this doesn't only serve as just a more direct means to funnel the player into dungeon crawls.
  14. mcmanusaur
    You really need to let go of this logically flawed argument already. You're creating a false dichotomy for all mechanics by calling them either "insignificant" or "compulsory". This doesn't take into account that different players get different experiences out of the game. One player might be for all intents and purposes "bad" at the game, and thus they may require a bunch of health potions and the like, meaning that they have to optimize even the things you find insignificant. Another player might be pretty good at the game skill-wise, and they might not need many potions at all, which means that they find things insignificant that you might have found compulsory. Yes, there are different difficulties, but this doesn't mean that everyone who plays each difficulty will necessarily be at the same level. Thus, it's crucial that within difficulties players are allowed more or less efficient, and more or less comprehensive styles of play (to a certain point), and the reward for maximizing both should be significantly rewarding but not necessary for the core experience. Rather, the reward should be related to side objectives and things like strongholds, of which PE will hopefully include enough. Thus in invoking the insignificant/compulsory dichotomy, you're assuming that everyone will have the same ultimate objectives as you in playing the game, and thus will adopt the same playstyle, while ignoring the fact that there are optional parts of the game. In reality, someone who wants an optimal stronghold might consider gaming this mechanic compulsory, whereas someone who simply wants to play through the main quest might consider it insignificant to their ends, and that's how it works with any such mechanic. Out of all the mechanics in an RPG like PE that can be gamed more or less efficiently, adding one more in the form of regional pricing isn't going to have a huge effect on the balance of money. Personally I think the game should be designed such that there should always be something to buy with your gold, but obviously it's not guaranteed that this something will appeal to all players. While the game should probably be designed for a player who optimally games a medium number of mechanics, it's good for him to have more options so that he can choose one in line with his character, rather than simply deciding how to play based on what he/she the player wants to get out of the game.
  15. mcmanusaur
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a bit different in that you just have some stores that are "better" than others, no matter what you're selling, right? I think having certain kinds of items being at better prices, and certain items at worse prices, depending on resource availability would be more interesting, as well as less "compelling" in the manner Sacred_Path argues. This is also something that could be more subtly hinted to the player (so that they'd notice its existence) than "if you're looking for good deals, visit X", which takes all of the complexity away from the mechanic.
  16. mcmanusaur
    I once tried playing on a NWN1 RP server, and somehow I got roped into a multi-level dungeon crawl. The only line other than "Rest up here, friends!" that I can remember was something about the party's petite rogue dragging a giant piece of loot (might have been a bastard sword) in the sand behind her on the way out, and how she had to get one of the strong warriors to carry it up a ladder for her... Never again.
  17. mcmanusaur
    I think it's more a matter of how elegantly and efficiently the quest designer can introduce elements of cd onflict anchoice into the quests. A questgiver has their own motivations/goals, which may or may not coincide with those of the player or the in-game society at large, and you could even involve further NPCs with competing motivations/goals. On the other hand, with an inanimate object, there's really little to prompt this kind of conflict/choice; a quest that doesn't involve NPCs isn't able to persuade the player of any approach as easily (though the case of a book giving a quest would be an exception that I wouldn't mind, since writing can be persuasive). If a quest was cued in such a manner, the most interesting development would be if different party members/companions suggested different courses of action, but then they're really just taking on the role of "questgiver" if you think about it. Otherwise the player's motivations are the only ones at play, and the only idea I can think of for introducing conflict or choice is through derpy journal entries like this: "I've seen a bright light in the distance, leaving me very curious. I could either march the whole party directly at it, or the party could split up..." A rather mundane example, but I find the general approach nauseating. It's rather extreme hand-holding, and immensely less stirring than when well-written NPCs confront you with objectives. This is all the kind of thought processes that the player should be engaging in without having to be incentivized with objective experience. It's not as real because the game is trying to make abstractions of what's going on inside the character's head, when the player should be the ultimate judge of that in roleplay. There also tends to be a big difference between the gravitas of the main storyline and the kinds of side "quests" we're talking about now, and that's why hand-holding/guided roleplay is sort of okay for one but not for the other. There's a difference from taking away a player's choice about what the character's motivations and goals are (as happens with self-initiated quests), and taking away a player's choice about what the character's actions are (as often occurs in more traditional quests, and for the reasons I describe above this one is easier to fix). You would really rather be railroaded at the level of your own character's mind than at the level of having to appease other characters? As I have stated above, this approach tends to pigeonhole the character's motivations, and at best incentivizes the player to roleplay (in a restricted manner no less) with XP rewards. With NPC-initiated quests, you could easily provide options for greedy and vengeful players in the same quest, whereas with "self-initiated" quests they assume that the character has certain motivations and if that is not the case then you're out of a quest (or different choices are introduced in a very awkward manner as described above). The protagonist is "too passive" in most RPGs? But he/she is the only one who ever gets anything done! At any rate, in most decent RPGs I've played, the player does have freedom to do what they want; they just aren't incentivized/rewarded with XP. Removing any semblance of external motivation isn't the way to empower the player character in my opinion; rather, fetch quests should play on the conflicts between external and internal motivations, or between different external motivations. For me, the choice associated with conflict between different internal motivations is omnipresent in RPGs ("Do I talk to this villager or kill them?") and not needed to be incentivized with XP, but it is usually not strong enough to construct a narrative that I feel is quest-worthy or XP-worthy.
  18. mcmanusaur
    Why have quest rewards at all? No, really. If the quest is interesting, you don't need to dangle a bag of XP and Gold in front of my face to make me want to do it. If you make a location interesting I'll want to explore it just to see what's there. And if the quests/locations aren't interesting, then what exactly are the rewards accomplishing? I agree. But if you think about it, you probably wouldn't be playing the game if you weren't reaping some kind of reward from it. The fact that you can experience an interesting location and narrative could be considered a reward in and of itself, and in a perfect world I'd say that these would be sufficient motivations in and of themselves as your say. But in an RPG, which usually involves the player's character progressing in some manner in addition to the main "reward" of theoretically having fun in the process, I think it makes decent sense that these measures of progress would result from quest completion.
  19. mcmanusaur
    Ehhhh... I get where you're going with that, but... It's almost getting to point of what Progress Quest is designed to parody. It's definitely a more MMO-esque approach to experience, and I'm still not sure how you decide which mini-goals are worth rewarding and which aren't. If you continue to make it more "modular", you could end up giving XP for killing enemies since that arguably advances your quest progress, but then that defeats the whole point of not giving experience for combat. It's a nice concept, but I honestly don't see the use of this; to me, quest-based XP is about rewarding the player for actually accomplishing something of some narrative value and consequence, rather than rewarding them every time they decide to do something mundane like swing their sword at the enemy. Furthermore, how do you balance important quests when you're unsure whether the player will attempt them right off, or after having leveled up due to discovering every location on the map? Exploration is the kind of thing that in my opinion should be done for other reasons to gain experience. It depends... did these conversations ever actually happen, or did the journal entry magically appear as soon as I entered the area, leaving me to imagine having had said conversation? It's been done before.
  20. mcmanusaur
    That's actually what I meant. I guess you misunderstand my proposal. Let's assume that you get an entry in your journal that there are rumors of a black market operating in town, and this hint is oh so subtly written in gold, which indicates that there is an opportunity for you in all that. This hint doesn't ignore or take away any aspect of roleplaying; it's entirely up to you to investigate this rumour, be it because you want in on the scheme or because you want to rat them out to the town guard, not to mention the many reasons why your character may want to simply ignore these rumors. This isn't in any way less roleplaying-y than accepting a specific quest from the captain of the town guard to locate the black market. Well, surely someone is responsible for informing you of that rumor, right? Isn't that the questgiver? I don't really see how rumors appear out of nowhere... and I don't want stuff to pop up in my journal without any explanation if that's what you're suggesting. Or is it just kinda like you stumble upon a wanted poster with a bounty? I mean, even then there's arguably a questgiver- the person who you collect the bounty from- but you merely skip talking to them at the beginning of the quest. So yes, I guess I don't really understand what you're proposing, or how quest-based XP ties into this.
  21. mcmanusaur
    If this happens, then the people who play RPGs for its reassuring number progression would lose their motivation... But yes, I've always liked the idea of a system that turns all "leveling up" into a series of quests, in which knowledge- which is gleaned from books and trainers- rather than experience (the reward for repeatedly performing the same action) is the primary measure of progress. To me that is much more conducive to a quest reward than a simple sum of XP, which is what people seem to be expecting in PE. This also better facilitates a narrative being created from character progression, as you're literally completing a questline in the process of "leveling up". It's always baffled me that the main focus of character development in most RPGs was on the process's most repetitive elements, but to be fair it would of course be difficult to stretch such a system to provide as many hours of "content" as the traditional grinding-based progression. Or is toiling toward some arbitrary number really more fun than taking one's time and enjoying the ride, for some people? That's really only applicable to a skill-based system I guess, and I suppose that's all getting way off-topic anyway.
  22. mcmanusaur
    what's the opposite of doing a fetch quest? There still aren't many games that will offer an alternative reward for turning down quests. No, but there are many games that offer alternative ways to complete quests. "NPC X wants you to bring Y to him? Bring it to me, NPC Z, instead!" There's some opportunity for your character's motivations to resonate with the ideology/promised rewards of sentient questgivers, whereas there is little way to call a player's character's motivations into questions when you simply spring the quest on them when they enter an area or do all of their goal-setting for them. It's sacrificing narrative depth and any pretense of roleplay, with little but expediency and a bit more incentive for metagame-y completionism to gain. The fact that the rationale and consequences of fetch quests is never interesting enough isn't a reason to cut those things out entirely, but rather to improve them in the manner that the OP suggests, in my opinion. At any rate, I'm not sure what questgiver-less quests have to do with fetch quests, if there's no one to fetch stuff for. Where does that leave us, fetching stuff for ourselves? Is that what counts as a decent quest nowadays?
  23. mcmanusaur
    Well, consider me somewhat skeptical that the developers could possibly cover (i.e. reward with XP) whichever goals a player sets for himself/herself, and with that in mind it becomes a question of which arbitrary goals are the right ones... Something like this also has the danger of encouraging a completionist playstyle to an even greater degree, if the progression of your character is tied to completing any number of random objectives. What if it doesn't fit your character's personality or motivations to explore some random dungeon, or something like that? Admittedly this is sort of a problem with quest-based XP in general, but at least with a questgiver in the picture you have the option of either doing what the NPC wants or doing the opposite, and either will likely result in an XP reward. Whereas with more freeform quests (that likely have no promise of reward other than XP), it sort of voids the question of whether your character would realistically want to get involved or not in whatever random quest lead they witness. Traditional quests are good in my opinion because they tend to give your character some non-meta reason to want to become involved in whatever it is that the quest involves.
  24. mcmanusaur
    do TES games actually use objective XP? No, I don't think so, but I'm pretty sure GW2 does, like many MMO's. Why? because it plays strongly into what a quest is. I know that the idea of a quest starting as a rumor isn't novel, but I personally haven't played a CRPG that does what I was talking about. Well, what do you think doing it in such a way would accomplish?
  25. mcmanusaur
    do TES games actually use objective XP? No, I don't think so, but I'm pretty sure GW2 does, like many MMO's. Why? And the issue is that this approach seems to cut out a lot of the narrative depth in favor of a quicker challenge/reward turnover for the sake of accelerating character progression (not to be confused with character development).
×
×
  • Create New...