Diogo Ribeiro

Well, we could start talking like this. Zantetsuken: Yes. Shadow Paladin: No. Zantetsuken: Yes. Shadow Paladin: No. Zantetsuken: Yes. Shadow Paladin: No. Until someone spoils the fun by posting "Maybe".

I'm not favouring removing dialogue, just suggesting a better analysis of the times where its not really necessary. This isn't just concerning distracting the player with dialogue lines that don't lead anywhere, its also about NPCs' logic. One other example would be Aran Linvail. I'm almost certain 90% of his dialogue lines lead always to the same answer. Thats counting despite what and how i tell him things. Do you suppose that talking to someone aggressivelly will prompt a serene answer from them? Troughtout a dialogue? I don't think so. I'm not so sure its just because of the ruleset. In a somewhat recent online convo with David Gaider at RPGCodex, people asked him about what they considered to be a problem with romances, where ugly, low reputation characters with low stats for their mental capacities could not only speak fluently, but could win over their lovers. Gaider stated something which involved Bioware opting for that route because players did not liked to be challenged, if i recall correctly. One thing is to be under pressure from time constrains and not paying much attention to stats, the other is deciding that the player shouldn't be put into a difficult position because he made a wrong choice It leads to a kind of automation and sedation in gameplay that isn't very healthy, methinks. I didn't said there was anything wrong with bribing, merely what possessed the devs to give players the chance to try and talk Bodhi (a high-level powerful Vampire) out of harming the group, but didn't think of giving that option when the party was confronted with a group that could possibly be bribed. This isn't always the case. You may need to mix and combine your Speech values with information about who you're talking to. IIRC. talking the Master out of his plans involved high Cha, high Speech, and having read Vree's Mutant autopsy reports. While its not like that all the time, its not always just relying on the stat itself. I think this was true for the Saturn versions (which were divided into 3 chapters, although only one was translated and released in NA), am i correct? I played the Genesis versions and never spotted this. Agreed, but thats precisely the problem. If we are to use recurring characters in the series, then you'll see how people flock over to Sarevok, or even Minsc. Imoen never really stood out in the first game. Bioware just took the liberty of expecting us to care for her because we were both orfans in Candlekeep, despite the player never experienced any kind of affinity for the character during that time. In fact, the only time where you may get some sympathy for the character is in BG2, after the torture. However the character was highly underdevloped. I was much more happy with Sarevok's return then I was at the thought of having to hear "Hun, yer a queer fellow." again :ph34r:

Good luck in curing the devs. Go, you. Incidentally, you are generating the character. If it was called "Character Creation", it'd be a clear mistake, but "Character Generation" is correct, as "generating" usually means to define something, and that's what you do, you define/generate the (possible to define, o'course) elements of the character.

Well theirs has more acceptance, but then again, they do it more often. They have more series, and have mastered it quite well. Twinsen was definetely "cute", but the styles are different. Each worked on their own. Also, Pokemon and Yugi Oh seem to be more accepted, true, but not necessarily because of the anime style, but rather because of the whole merchandise surrounding them. Don't also forget how Mana and CC are made by Square. Most things that Square do are widely accepted, even if they were using good anime in it or not.

When they talk, that is. Remember how you're given usually 3 lines of dialogue to try and determine the nature of the killers hired to kill you in BG1? That's 3 lines (or 4), *all* leading to the same. And you know its funny? What you ask them is irrelevant, as they have a convenient note explaining their motivation. Remember how, despite how many lines you get in BG2, Irenicus himself states that you'll get "no villain's exposition" out of him? And how you can read his freakin' diary? Thats basically it. Its fine to give lines to players to which they can express the character, but more than 2 lines for an event which you cannot handle differently? I believe this tends to just bog down the game. Choices should usually be more meaningful, or more taken into account; or the amount should be reduced, if they do not give anything to the player. In the case of the hired killers, one line would suffice, for instance. What if my character has abilities which aren't taken into account? Yes like you said, some are there for the character; but what if the character has the means to persuade someone, but there isn't an option? Well, we can blame the NPC, stating his personality doesn't allow to bribe/convince him/etc.. But with 18+ on Charisma, a female PC, 237,580 gold pieces, and enough trinkets to make the finest shop in Athkatla blush when looking at their stock, it ends up being weird how you can't bribe on more than one ocasion o_O Would your character be more of a character if he could say five things instead of two, if those two conveyed feelings for the character? And why are you given the option of bribery on some occasions but not others? What led the devs to think, say, that you can ask Bodhi if you can do something to appease her (Spellhold) and not being able to tell the 4 NPCs that invade Garren Windspear's home you'd pay them to avoid confrontation? Its not strict to BG2, though, but its annoying as far as giving several ways of expression. Unfortunately for me I had left Imoen's chunks bleeding on the side of the road near the Friendly Arm Inn. But much to my surprise her chunks rejoined and opened my caged door in BG2 <_< I'm all up for having the developers come up with ways to make me feel involved with NPCs, but that was quite the assumption they made there. The worse part was having everyone tell me the urgency in finding Imoen, when i could take as long as I wished; and she wasn't even important at all, as i could finish SoA and ToB without her. She wasn't even memorable for the remainder of the game after she rejoined my rank. Xan, Xzar and Shar-Teel were more memorable, yet, they were either dead or gone. At least Viconia was back, and they had the great insight of killing Khalid. Its not really about preconceptions about an entire game (i certainly don't expect a game to be like other games i've played; we'd be screwed if that happened), but rather, how certain elements are handled. No doubt D&D is usually centered on heroic enterprises, but that doesn't mean that they should 1) always be about heroism (PS:T wasn't about heroism, it was very individualistic in that matter), and 2) that my character is given large control but little outcome. No doubt the game succeeded despite my problems with it, but its undeniable that roleplaying in the game was very poor (at least as far as meaningful decisions and dialogue choices).

Speaking of which, what games would you cite has having been instrumental in expanding your knowledge on gaming, wheter in developing, wheter in broadening your gaming horizons?

I think that there doesn't need to be a constant negotiation with individuals. Many people believe that Frank Horrigan was basic as we couldn't talk him out of it, but in retrospect, like me, he also had a job. My point however, is that, if there isn't a chance to dialogue, why include the option? Or why bother with about 20 different lines of dialogue if its going to amount to combat? I always disliked that in BG, it made the situation feel fake. I tend to use some degree of imagination occasionaly, but it depends on the game. To me IWD gave me good options for character creation, as did Wizardry 8; however, imagining backgrounds was fairly useless, and roleplaying, expressing my characters, was mostly fruitless. Thats not to say I can't create pasts, stories, or backgrounds. I can. They just don't matter. Its like creating characters' pasts for a story, but then have them automatically put the past behind, and have most of their future assumed for them. By contrast Fallout was the opposite, and BG had the right idea of character creation but then had very limited expression. The whole experience i got out of BG2 was mostly the good aspect of char creation, but looking disapointed as I just followed things that forced me to make choices, or making choices for me. I highly disliked that the devs assumed I *had* to care for Imoen, or for Irenicus' torture. I highly disliked that being evil was almost the same as being good, only with "Me Gnaarl, me kill!" dialogue choices. Being Chaotic Evil would imply I shouldn't care for some things, like helping Elhan. And that I spent about a month improving my character to end up being captured anyway... was very bad. I didn't felt amused by that one, not one bit. This isn't to say that i tolerate similar things in PS:T and don't in BG2, thats not the reason. Its just that choices are just taken away, or not given, despite its not as strict a game as PS:T was. And I admit I may have been spoiled with FO. Who doesn't?

I came here after leaving BIS, but not because they ended. I simply go to other places and Obsidian's forums were mentioned so i tracked down the site, and waited for their opening.

But you have to concede that "finding my way" is a linear affair, of which you cannot handle as you wish for the larger part of the game. That i can create my character is established, but "finding my way" isnt something worth bragging about if it entails a tight leash. It feels mostly, in the games we've been talking of (possible exception being Fallout and Morrowind in one or two events), of finding out our way trough a maze with one single path to it. Even if you ignore for a minute the fact that PS:T has a predetermined character, and BG doesn't (in the same sense of PS:T of course, as its forcing you to a role regardless), and just focus on the rest of the game, expressing the Bhaalspawn that you are comes off as something empty. The very fact that i can create my own Bhaalspawn should have been taken into consideration, and instead I can only "define" myself in matters of choosing the good or evil path in the game's quests (and evil is barely present). Even in story-driven terms, TNO is given better expression. Should the fact that you can use imagination to roleplay a character be used in a medium which doesn't care about your imagination? And should the game's inneficciency in allowing for better ways of expressing your character be excused because i can use imagination? Fallout proves to be very good in RP as it represents many character nuances according to your decisions. You can't imagine on the same scale as a PnP game, but there are many things you can do in it, and your character will change and evolve based on it. Not so much an opportunity for that in BG2, despite that I can use imagination on both.

Curiously, they labelled TNO's statistical tweaking as "Character Generation"

Both of the games' stories compel the player to feel immersed in them, as they have the characteristics of allowing players to be a part of it, are centered around the character, and require the player to move the story forward on their own means (this is more true in Morrowind than it is in Fallout, althought Fallout has the character define itself better). So you go ahead and make the claim that I wasn't answering you - when I was - because in your mind, I wasn't answering to other things you asked before? Whoa, for a minute I thought you were going to make sense, but thankfully I was wrong <_< So tell me how finding something compelling is not subjective.

Yes, AFAIR, TNO was driven by his fear of mortality hence why he sought out Ravel. The rest, as they say, is history. As for the characters. Annah's only past connection i remember was that she just found his corpse in the Tenement of Thugs. Grace wasn't connected to him, however, and neither was Nordom. Morte and Dak'kon had past affiliations with him, Vhailor chased him, and Ignus was his pupil (and plaything, in a way). Yes, FO seems to be a logical example to follow in CRPG design. It probably should be explored better by other companies.

Lightsabers that behave more like lightsabers and less like 150 dollar coloured sticks.

The advantage is the same you'd find when you compare BG over PS:T. That was your intention, after all, so that's pretty much why i devled into it. True, you can ask why would people want to control a construct. Its a perfectly valid question. Though, i'd answer that with another question: why would anyone want to control an amnesiac and scarred humanoid? No doubt controlling a humanoid is more interesting than controlling a construct, but where's the main difference? Would PS:T be very different if TNO was a construct? Also, I'm using the term construct to define something that is artificial, but not necessarily with an outward appearance like a Transformer. One of the girls in the Brotherl of Slating Intellectual Lusts was also a construct, yet had a human appearance. There's nothing preventing the construct from having past "lives". Its creator could have implanted several motivational CPUs to determine how he'd act out in given situations. Other people, or other constructs which had not had their memory erased, could very well remember him for what he did, despite the fact the construct wasn't exactly guilty of doing some things, per se. Who the creator was, what the construct did, and how it would affect him ,could all eventually be created on the same scale of intrincacies PS:T used, but differently to accomodate the construct however. The construct may even have more of an important role in the world than the creator itself, for all we know. Thats a good question. Other than Annah, Nordom and Grace, no one else in the party was actually a stranger to TNO. I think that Ignus perhaps would suffer more as a character if it didn't had a past connection with TNO, but I believe that Dak'kon, Morte and Vhailor could stand on their own. Vhailor perhasps would suffer a bit as well. I see your point. My point was more about exploring a given character, not havign a premade one. As far as roleplaying goes, I prefer creating my characters (that is, like i said, paramount to RPGs); I just prefer the roleplaying that PS:T gave me. It made my character feel more alive. Could just be that it was story driven, but i got the same feeling out of Fallout, not in the same way, but close. BG carried many problems to me as far as roleplaying goes, and its character creation unfortunately was not enough to compensate. I understand your point, although i failed to see it that way. It felt terribly empty.

I apologize if you haven't said it; however' date=' i wouldn't mention this if i wasn't almost sure you had. I didn't even admit you didn't sayed it, i pointed out i seemed to recall something to that effect. If you were under police investigation you could also have a problem with not answering some of the things I asked you <_< Although, usually describes you better than what it describes me. You're never happy with what I give you, are you? You can adjust it so the construct would orchestrate its own creation (the current one), and possibly its own master's disappearance (willingly or not); in the same way TNO was responsible for being in his current predicament. You could even have the construct become aware of the meanings of life and death, and he could be on the verge of being deactivated, so it opted to orchestrate its survival. Yup, i saw Memento. Good movie. Gotta find me the DVD one of these days. Your posts tend to be shorter not because you don't me quote by quote, but because you answers are shorter. <_< You play Final Fantasies, don't you? FF7 and FF8 had a similar theme. Cloud was a clone with a fake past who went gaga, and the whole cast of FF8 had it so the Guardian Forces erased their memory over time (hence why none remembered the orphanage). Not an absolute memory loss, but close. But the point i was stressing was not (necessarily) about self-discovery in the game, it was about a character's possible development outside story bounds. Even in PST, the character grows and mutates outside of the story's chokepoints. Memory recoveries, statistical growth, alignment changing... I disliked them as well, mostly because of what you say. In the realm of the silent NPCs, i believe Torment (yet again) succeeded in this. I was only giving an example based on something people tend to be familiar with. I could've went with Arcanum's reputation slider, or even used Alignment and Reputation outside of their own D&D field. Agreed. I don't recall ever saying the opposite of that, or disagreeing with it. I perfectly understand that, and why people prefer one way over the other. In fact, this part is important, methinks: This is important in two ways. One, because its true; second, because it would appear you understood one our main points about why people used PS:T as an example in terms of character freedom. Although this preference is impressive when it comes to considerations on roleplaying, at least on the PC side. While creating your character is no doubt important, I strongly feel sorry for people who prefer that element over PS:T, because despite allowing for such a thing, BG comes nowhere near in roleplaying options. Its a pity. Alright, accepted.

^True. It doesn't matter much what he was; you have a chance to develop him after- Incidentally, i know what SP's problem with the game is, and i totally accept his comment; however, contrary to what he says, character freedom is not strict to creating a character.

Not really the truth, but this is a web comic strip about the cancelation of the title. http://www.vgcats.com/vgc_comics/ Amusing, despite the circumstances

"Never" is a strong word. I seem to recall you implying this several times, if not outright saying it, on the IPLY boards, for instance. If you're talking of the construct example: There's a difference between having memories blocked, and not having memories at all. The construct example wouldn't have anything remotely similar to amnesia. If you have amnesia, that means you had something to remember, and now lost it. The construct wouldn't have amnesia, in this case. If you're talking of TNO: TNO also isn't aware that his memories have problems when he wakes up at the Mortuary. They aren't blocked per se, but they are no doubt suffering from a problem which is not ordinary. And while you grew to understand there was something wrong with your memories in Torment's regular version, a change could be applied to my concept and have it go from there. The incarcerated Incarnations could give subtle hints. TNO could have one single flash, or memory as he woke up, hinting at his condition. Let's also not forget what changes could be made to the tatoos on his back as well. Ok. Granted again - thats why i gave you the example of the construct. Even with the example of the child, the personality would be paper thin. newc0253 pointed out he'd be a vegetable, but while i think this is probably an exacerbation of it, changes could be made to the prison so it would stimulate the child and possibly teach it to have common expectations of the outside world, and suitable reactions. My point is that there is a difference between suffering amnesia - which usually entails a slow, and sometimes unsuccessful recovery - and a mental block which prohibits access to them, despite the similarity in both problems. In the case of my example for PS:T, it didn't even need to be permanent - TTO's control over TNO's could possibly dissipate along the way. I have no idea what part of what I wrote you're responding to. Possibly because you're not playing the "quote game"? Oh that's right, so tell me the excu... er, the reason, then. What is the definition of your *[thunderclap]* GAME OF THE QUOTES *[thunderclap]*? Unless you're implying that quoting someone and answering them is a game, which it isn't. The purpose changed, and so did the method and effect. Saying "The rest of what you say is never going to matter anyway" is an attack on what I say, and also me. If you wanted to attack the argument, you'd have said "The rest of what you say on this matter isn't relevant/doesn't matter". I accept constrains. Sometimes they are even interesting. What i don't accept is what you hinted was an impossibility - character development outside strict story dictates - because exceptions exist, and contrary to a certain brain addled orc's comments, I pointed out examples of this. In fact, you pointed it out again: Explain Fallout, and Morrowind to me. Or even Fallout 2. You have: >A universal reputation system. >Reputations for the places you go to. >Dialogue trackings for gender. >Statistical and skill tracking for dialogues and situations. >Karmic titles. >Factions. >Classless character system. And your character can evolve in them, leaving it to the hands of the player. You have more "character freedom" than you have in Torment, and yet, the game is able to validate it on multiple personal levels. Something you believe can't qite be done. What I would accept you saying would be that it would be increasingly hard, and perhaps not worth it, to have a system such as NWN or IWD2's character creation system, combined with the complexity of FO's system. That, i agree is hard to work with, and *perhaps* not worth the hassle for many people, including starting companies like Obsidian. However, you don't have to validate everything that goes into character creation. If you take on a framework like D&D, there are stats which are touched very little. Con, Wis, Int. Most people also don't mind the races they're dealing with, aside obvious exceptions (Elves and Dwarves, Orcs and everyone else, etc). You also could do away with either Alignment or Reputation; choose which would matter less, and take the other one. Notice where I'm getting? Saying that character development can, or should mostly occur outside of the story wasn't something that you or Gromnir should harp on, because it happens in other games. Never said otherwise. However, just because it's successful without those elements doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful with them. Also note, there is player choice on quite some levels (though much like BG2, they hardly matter). I wasn't criticizing KoTOR at all <_< Now, you have to admit, *that* is ironic. Possibly dangerous, in terms of not agreeing with outcomes. Not only that, it'd have to be well-balanced to avoid everyone choosing one option to benefit from the outcome. Perhaps a racial + alignment + skill choice, or something to that effect?

That has been one of your recurring themes when talking of Torment. I already gave the example of being taken over by someone or something which blocks your memories. If you want to start with a pre-gen, without personality, consider someone who is a creator of beings (artificial or not, left to discretion), and decides to create one such being set to explore the world. However, the creator determines all of the functions of the being, but before it could give it a personality matrix, he dies (or disappears, if you want to gve mistery to players). You have a construct with abilities, the knowledge to use them, but without any knowledge of who/what it is, and why its there. Only a preset command of learning. Pre-gen, no amnesia, but no knowledge of the purpose of the self, either. No removal of it either, just an utter lack of it. I suppose i could then venture off and have the character being able to insert random motivational chips in it, each giving the character different takes on life (Little Big Adventure's different Moods come to mind), but that's another thing entirely... Hey, i approach things as they approach me as well. Would it? How do you know that TTO's control would allow TNO to develop free will, and a personality of its own? Hardly see why it's a one trick pony. If the child was not given the opportunity to develop a personality while incarcerated, then he'd be even more of a blank slate. No contact with outside world. No contact with other prisoners. No contact - or rare - with guards. Not much room to create a full personality. Amnesia is characterized as a total or partial loss of memory; preventing you from remembering something is different. As an example, a person who can't move the his body from the waist down is a paraplegic; if you have someone forced into not being able to move from the waist down doesn't mean the person is also a paraplegic, just that he can't use them. You claimed you didn't played quoting games, when in fact, you do. You quote what you feel like - claiming you don't is fine, until one backtracks the thread and sees you're doing exactly that which you claim you don't. Again, stop being a hypocrite. It doesn't suit you. Nope. The real question is, do you find something offensive about answering everything that's thrown you way? I just did. Feel free to ignore it, though. You were talking of me taking things personally back there, but I suggest you'd take your own advice. So, if it doesn't matter to you, why mention it? Excuse me? >You were the one that prompted me to do something based on what I said' date=' albeit what I said couldn't possibly lead you to asking me that. You either misunderstood my point, or just felt like causing a ruckus, which I wouldn't be surprised. What I said, i'll repeat - a character's development works fine if enough freedom is given to the player to do so. Fallout did what I was talking of. >You were the one that stated, quote: Guess what? I wasn't talking of "complete freedom" to define character and compelling story. What I said was this: Paladin claimed that more freedom to the player was a burden, as he mentioned that it required more work on behalf of the player to define the character. Again, I point to Fallout, where moving trough the game created your own story without pressure. But to you, this meant I'm not responding to you, that I'm just complaining, and spouting ridiculously meaningless statements. >Then you say, correctly, that you're still waiting for the story, and I reminded you of what you said yourself, to take my time. But to you, this meant I'm not responding to you, that I'm just complaining, and spouting ridiculously meaningless statements. >Then you questioned if I was saying that Morrowind and Fallout fit the bill, and after my confirmation of this... ...you claim I'm not answering you, that I'm just complaining, and spouting ridiculously meaningless statements... And to finalize, your asinine comment: Here's the deal: like I said, I know you're an intelligent person, but honestly, this is becoming absolutely stupid on your behalf. I don't know wheter your orc speech is finally coagulating in your brain, if you're intent on being confrontational for the hell of it, or whatever. Your attitude on this one shows how disrepectful, arrogant, and untrustworthy you can be. I'm not even going to bother finish compiling the rest of what you asked - a pity, as I just finished dealing with the concept that involved your requisite of having the character and story being unimportant - because I'm not really going to spend more time typing for someone who gets a kick out of acting like a dismissive, pompous ass. But I'm guessing that "d00d, we knows j00 didt underst00d! HAR HAR HAR Good Fun LOLZ!!! " will be somewhat likely to be in your reply. Take my statement and action as you will. If you ever feel the need to actually treat people respectfully, we'll be around.

What you quoted was to counter your claim that the game had the character's personality set in stone, when it doesn't. Do try and show some respect by paying attention to what I write, since that's what I'm doing with what you write as well. This is what you wrote: They don't have premade personalities. Premade pasts, yes. Let me play that game as well, but with house rules. You claim its impossible to do as i suggest (despite what I suggested already being done; you and Gromnir totally misunderstood what i said, and went this route, fine). Ok, until you prove that it can't be done, I won't believe it. If you say its not possible, then you must have calculated many possibilties and made many tests, so explain to us how you reached that conclusion. The levels of denial and self-elevation are almost funny. I can think of a country which enforces a penal system where, if pregnant women birth a child, but dies while in prison before fulfilling their time, the child is placed in prison and is set to carry out the remainder of the sentence on behalf of the mother. The child would receive some form of training, or education (or not, optionally). During a routine transfer of prisoners, your shuttle crashes and you are one of many prisoners who have never seen the outside world, and are veritably a blank slate from the get go, much like TNO, unaware of what surrounds him, or what to do, or how to act. But you're probably after a system where it's exactly like PS:T, but without using amnesia. Ever considered a possibility where who you control may be manipulated into supressing memories? Or what if the Nameless One was being mind-controlled and was not aware of this? What if he didn't suffered from amnesia but simply was prevented from accessing his memory, and what he thought to be his decisions were the decisions of that which controlled him? What if TTO, instead of trying to kill TNO from a distance, decided to lure him into where he was - the Fortress of Regrets - and remotely took over TNO's conscience (blocking his memory, simulating amnesia) and guided him into where he was? The Incarnations, trapped in the Fortress, could keep on suggesting TNO - via the "prickling sensation" - on ocasional parts of the game. Don't be a hypocrite. If you don't "play the selective quotes game", as you put it, then why are you doing it as you type, selecting what to quote from my posts and answering what you feel like? Its easy to deem worthless what doesn't suit you, isn't it? Still living up to your reputation, i see. Oh well, like i said, your silence is an answer in itself.

Again i have to question just how much you know of the game. There are things to do aside following the story. Just like in your previous examples, BG2 and Fallout. When you exit Chateu Irenicus you don't have to follow him right away, just as you don't have to search for Ravel as soon as you leave the Mortuary, and just as you don't have to go for the Water Chip as soon as you leave Vault 13. You can't create a background for PS:T, as you so pointed out; and having a would-be player-created background for PS:T getting constantly invalidated is a fact, as it was for BG2. No exception. Can't wait to see this. Unfortunately, you fail to see beyond your own mentality. For someone who accuses others of not seeing the obvious, the obvious iluded you again. The Nameless One's personality is *not* set in place - he doesn't even have one. His previous personalities, traits, ways of being, are nullified everytime he dies, and everytime he comes to himself, he has no personality whatsoever. You get to define it during the time you play, as can be validated by the plethora of character-defining choices during the game, and the quite obvious change of self-awareness provided by the alignment tracking. Even without the loss of memory, any other plot device could be installed, because the amnesia was only a premise, and not defining of the character. When you begin the game, he's as empty and in need of being controlled by a player as any other CRPG character, be it PS:T, Fallout or BG2. So, where is this powerful destruction of what we said? Other than inside your mind, that is? This a wrong notion. You are no more turning a page in PS:T when you forcefully have to see Ravel then you turning a page as you are forcefully being captured by Irenicus in Spellhold. In the same way, the writers behind BG2 already knew how they wanted the character to grow - that's why you can't say no to being captured initially, why you can't say no to being captured again, why you can't say no to having to side with a Guild, why you can't say no in many ocasions. In the same way that PS:T is centered about the character of TNO, so is the BG saga around the character you create. As much as the people behind Torment had an idea of how TNO would develop in key instances, so did the writers of the Bhaalspawn you controlled. Could be because your idea of character freedom is different than that of most people. People are giving examples of games that allowed for a high amount of freedom in defining the character, and wheter you like it or not, even if you understand it or not, that was one of the things PS:T allowed for. Your comparison doesn't show much thought, given BG and IWD follow the same pattern of story chokepoitns and making assumptions for the player, and ocasionally placing them in a place which they don't have a choice over. The fact you can point out the strict rules in PS:T, but cannot do the same for BG2, when everyone else can, shows you're being nothing more than a biased person in the whole matter, and of why you can't be taken seriously. >And incidentally, thank you so much for not answering my larger part of the post back there. Your silence in the matter is more revealing than words.

"Canadian RPG experts Bioware" How many oxymorons are included there?

And you wonder why i'd be confused if you can't even pay attention to what you say yourself. No, i didn't answer my own question. And you barely answered it yourself. You claim that people that decide to engineer a character to have a given path trough a game is powergaming. To which I ask, what would you consider a better alternative? You can't have the character decide for itself, that much is obvious. And if you insist that character freedom - your roleplaying zenith - amounts to powergaming because we are deciding on the character's behalf, then what what do you propose? Apparently, people who never played a given CRPG before, and don't know what it entails, are apparent powergamers because they decide to choose a line of work, or a set of skills for the character in which they want to specialize. And what to say of a CRPG which is heavilly combat-oriented - any choice you make in character creation will apparently turn into powergaming by your reasoning. But here's the gist of it. You stress that choosing something like a character who is very proficient in speech amounts to the same as choosing someone who is very proficient in battle - powergaming. Since you're a supposed roleplayer, wouldn't you agree that, regardless of how one builds their character, roleplaying stresses the character's personality and motivations, and as such, that how I play the character is what matters? If you disagree, so be it, i'll have a field day anyway once I show the rest of the thread to an old GM of mine, and his current players. If you agree, however, then what makes you determine that character choices players make are automatically powergaming? Why do you feel the need to dicatate that on others? What if i want to stress my character's personality and motivations as I see fit, and for that, decide that he will be a character who is very adept at talking and convincing others - how do you determine the difference between "real motivations for my character" as opposed to what my choice of statitstics determine? Oh no, its far from being the best of what i can do. And come now, if i stopped trying to be clever, i would've lost some fine opportunities displaying where you are wrong (despite your refusal in admitting it), wouldn't I? We can't have that. But i'll explain what i intended with that question. On one hand you claim PS:T does not have character freedom. You reject all other character development and growth that the player handles (and if you don't reject, then you're mute about it), and ascertain that character freedom is only about the possibility to create a character. I've yet to find a PnP player with the same vision (or a GM for that matter), but alas, lets move on. Now, my question's purpose, explained: not long ago, you were of the mindset that people could not roleplay a character which they have not created. And obviously, not only you shifted from toe to toe trying to unsuccessfully explain this, you also brought up how PS:T was a prime candidate for this. So, if you state that: 1) PS:T has no character freedom (in your mind, that translates into no character creation); 2) You cannot roleplay with a premade character. Then, the question still stands. Why do you call the Final Fantasy series RPGs? You state that you "go by the definition". If they have two of your "no-go's" in terms of roleplaying, then deciding to call them RPGs seems to be too lenient, even going by the definition, for a self-proclaimed roleplayer. Unless there is a reason why you make an exception for console games and not for one PC game, in this case, Torment? From a so-called roleplayer, you have highly weird conventions about what constitutes roleplaying and what doesn't. In the end, I merely wanted to outline that it would seem that you can't maintain standards (this isn't much of a newsflash to those that know you, anyway) and your vision of a certain thing - in this case, what's being discussed - is not only contrived, but apparently also very yours, and not universal, as you so often tried to make it seem. "Trying to be clever" has its perks, specially when one actually manages to be. How you experienced the world could affect how you solved the endgame as well. Aside the already mentioned Ignus/Vhailor spiel, you'll have different ways of dealing with the Incarnations based on that, and the Transcendant One has its own power levels adjusted to somewhat mirror yours. You'll also have 9 different ways of reaching the end - some of which depending on choices you made over the course of the game, and those choices range from having used items, to having a given item with you, pumping the Transcendant One for information use it on the fly, or how some of your statistical values are adjusted. While not brilliant, these are different from those examples your brought from Deus Ex. In Deus Ex it really doesn't matter, as character power, growth, and deeds in the past do not matter; in PS:T some, albeit considered minor, do. Just for a quick reminder, these are from a FAQ for Torment, so spoilers ensue: The Endings: (from Platter) Merge with TTO: 1. Threaten him with the "Blade of the Immortal." 2. Threaten to unmake yourself with your will (min. WIS of 24). 3. Threaten him with your true name (must have used the Bronze Sphere). 4. Convince him things will be ok if you merge (min. CHA of 24). Kill yourself: 1. Use the "Blade of the Immortal." 2. Unmake yourself with your will (min. WIS of 24). Kill TTO: 1. Kill him by normal combat alone. 2. Resurrect one of your companions while talking to him. Pick Morte first as he is not really dead, then you can pick someone else too. 3. Resurrect all your party members by tricking him to go check the Shadows (need to have found the "Sounding Stone" in the room with the crystal). -This is discounting ways to handle the Incarnations, which, although small in comparison, i'm certain of at least one of them allowing knowledge from your past adventures to be used in conversation (the Practical Incarnation, and the ancient language).

Nevermind, post was blown away

Choosing the aspects I mentioned are usually a part of character creation in a CRPG, your zenith when it comes to character freedom. They were there to show how ridiculous it is to limiting the concept of character freedom strictly to things such as those. And given I didn't said i belived them to be defining elements myself - but rather, suggested that they'd be so for you, which would make sense, as they are a part of character creation - your post comes does come off as an assumption. Playing trough a game is a specific task. Is it powergaming to decide what would be the best ways to achieve success in it? Hardly. If you go by that reasoning, then any decision a player makes regarding the creation of their character, to ensure they are successful in given fields, then all you decide is powergaming. Unless you want me to believe that unfocused, careless decisions regarding character creation are a better form of roleplaying than deciding where my character should focus? That would be a riot. Your opinion is noted. Its good to know you consider an RPG something that generally does not allow character freedom. He actually had me come up with three different concepts, mostly involving story and characterization. Interaction adn reactivity with the world weren't present in his task, AFAIR, though i will re-check. If they are, i can only provide guidelines for that, obviosuly. Although, what does surprise me is how I've already come up with one of the concepts, and am now only polishing the edges.