Amentep

There's nothing wrong with stating that you're using a skill in P&P games. The problem, I think isn't in the theoretical, but in the practical. Lets use your example. You burst into a pirate's den who have stolen the mystic whozits from some random dude the next town over who promised you GOLD if you got his whozits back for him. [intimidate]I'll rip your arms off if you don't tell me what I want to know! Tell me what I want to know and I won't be forced to kill the remaining 100 people in this building. Hi there, I'm wondering if you've heard the Good News? I have a pamphlet here... Alms? Oh sorry, I seem to have broken down the wrong door. [bluff]I'm Bob, your new Pirate Apprentice from Pirate-Temps. Now lets say that you use Intimidate what are the options - Special dialogue (success or failure) Same dialogue as primary non-intimidate skill response If it is the second option, what's the point of creating a separate special [intimidate] option? If its the first lets look closely at that - First, for it to work almost every social situation should have a stat skill attached to it. But here's the thing you can't do that from a practical perspective (unless you're doing a generic [speech] skill where you don't have to worry about intent as much, only whether success chances are raised). You also can't really describe all of the possible imitation options that a P&P character would have. Typically you're going to look like a brutish thug; but intimidation can be more than that, a person could be intimidated by fear (arm ripping) or a sense of awe (OMG you're that adventurer who just killed Krogrok the Deadly. I'm you're biggest fan!) or just plain surprise (I didn't realize there was a door there!). So that means you're now at three intimidate possibilities to each dialogue (probably more). Otherwise you're just scripting special results for special situations - which is where we are now. But is this the best use of these skills? Then, because the skills are utilitarian they now have to give some positive effect to the user. So the solution is to make the [intimidate] tag something that for the player will always be successful. And thus the PC knows that whenever their [skill tag] comes up - it is the superior dialogue to take. One way to get around this is to apply skills to any dialogue where it might possibly make sense, thus allowing the scripter to only worry about skill successes and not skill use. But you couldn't do that and have the [intimidate] tag.

I'm looking forward to Obsidian's information on this race. But I don't have any strong particulars for what I want other than for them to be interesting to play.

Faerun was always a mishmash of places, AFAIK because it was created from...a bunch of different places. But frankly I can say I've never cared much about practical geography. So there's a rain forest on both sides of the mountain...can't say it ever bothered me much.

I think IWD probably made the most sense, but the BG games were horrible (IMO) multiplayer because of the heavy PC centric story. I tried playing it with a friend and it took us multiple sessions to get through the opening of the game. Anyhow out of the scope of what they're looking for in this game.

I'm not crazy about identify spells. I understand their important but it seems to make identification trivial (and only exist as a way to force the player to spend gold on identify scrolls). That said, it'd be interesting if identifying an item might take multiple steps unless someone with a high "lore" skill is involved as in the above unknown/qualified/identified suggestion.

Can't say I've really understood the point of the tags in most games since they do tend to work as optimal dialogue options. I suppose the theory is to give the player an understanding that their investment in "speech" skills carry some investment. Problem with replicating P&P skills is that so much of the P&P context just can't be replicated, so its harder to make their success realized by the player. At first, I had a Crazy alternate idea - dialogue choices also come up with a check box to apply skills to chosen line? Often would not lead to anything, but skill successes might be necessary to get optimal dialogue response; use of wrong skills might lead to dialogue failure or at least confusion (Intimidation + "Hi, how are you?). Benefit: player gets choice in skill use without being able to assume success or benefit of skill dialogue. Can "see" skill choices at work. Downside: extra work on dialogue system probably time/resource intensive. Player may be encourage to always check some skill even in innocuous dialogue and expect special reactions. In that sense, I think something like this may be impractical (even if its a good idea - of which I'm not certain!). After thinking about it further - dialogue is fixed, usually the context is fixed as well. Perhaps just have the game apply skills given the context and only provide feedback when the skill success leads to alternate dialogue paths?

I don't really want any cliche's mocked. I also think, to some degree, the majority of RPG cliches are unavoidable. As long as they can write a strong story and the gameplay works to propel me through that story, I can probably overlook any cliches that may get thrown at me.

The problem with that is that people will be frustrated with the inability to run, even if you set the walking speed to the same level of what you were planning the running speed to be. It's a perception thing. I like to think I'm part of that "people" group and I wouldn't mind it at all. The only time I've ever wanted a running option is when walking is so slow as to be tedious (and there have been some games that think slow walking is the "fun" way to implement movement). My experience has been that a decent walking speed will cause the average player to not care about the ability to run. The only way running makes sense is if there was a tactical need for it (running away, having an archer run to high ground for the first round so they can get better shots second round). And I'm not sure those reasons make sense in real-time w/pause.

I'm all for complex, well thought out quests. So if they've got a good way to do a complex, well thought out conspiracy quest - go for it.

Give me a nice normal walking speed. I'm not really sure a "run" makes sense unless they're planning to have tactical escapes. Otherwise I'd rather just be able to walk around town at a decent gate without looking like I'm running everywhere (or worse HAVE to run everywhere because turtles were passing me at the walk speed).

Is Project Eternity a combat sim? Will the only thing you can do is fight? Will we be fighting in tunnels and sewers and never leaving them, never resting at an inn, never gathering intel at a bar, never traveling multiple days overland? Because only a group of psychopaths would never talk to one another while traveling multiple days overland, I think, and I think if the characters can find the time to talk when not slaying monsters they can find the time to start up relationships. Frodo had Sam though - why'd he need the whores? (I kid, I kid) Also again there's the romance = sex correlation. I'd have no problem - again IF romances are to be included in any game - for a romance not to culminate in sex. Because not everyone falls into bed just because they started a romance. Okay so, to summarize people who have adventures never have romances or sex. Also Aerie = bad. Actually I agree elf-baby inventory item was bad. I dunno, I'm not convinced - as you seem to be - that adventuring couldn't support romance (while not every P&P Role playing game I played had it - some did; depended on the characters in situation). So ultimately that's all I've been advocating for - IF they're going to have NPCs with their own personalities and IF it makes sense for those NPCs and IF it fits the scope of the game and the story then why would I be against it? I know that there are some practical / resource concerns and I'm not for Romances where it isn't practical to include them or so resource intensive that the development of the game would be hampered. And Ouroboros was the first symbol from Project Eternity. Coincidence...or conspiracy? You decide. I'd love for their to be NPC-NPC relationships for interparty characters (like Mazzy and Korgan or Mazzy and Valgyar). I'm also against romance as only failable by PC choice; I think creating an NPC you could flirt with but who'd never seriously consider romancing the PC to be just as valid as an NPC who would romance you - or an NPC who'd stab you in the back the minute you gave them an opening. If I have to complain about romances as they are typically done in games its that they oftentimes don't really take the NPC as a character into account. And I think that's why many see them as fanservice because characterization goes out the window for the NPC to fall under the thrall of the PC losing any sense of their own personality along the way. I'm not a fan of deleting save games (unless in some kind of hardcore mode) but romance ending with PC death is what Bioware did for Mass Effect 2 with Morinth...

But killing Vulpes can be part of ordinary gameplay. When the conversation ends, you can pull out a gun and shoot him. There's no need to make that an explicit option in conversation, and there's no need to make killing Vulpes impossible if you don't happen to choose that explicit option in conversation. They should give us the freedom to act as we see fit within the game's mechanics, rather than writing out specific actions for us and having us choose from a list. Killing Vulpes isn't a dialogue option, what I'm saying is that there is a dialogue option with Vulpes that could explain the PC's motivation but the game can only react to killing Vulpes, not to why I killed Vulpes even if my character gets that dialogue option. Ceaser doesn't care why I did it, only that I did it and must be killed on sight. Maybe the PC did it because of the stated reason in the dialogue. Maybe it wasn't that reason. But what the game does react to is my "choice" to kill Vulpes not the line of thought that got me to the action. This is why many video game RPGs circle on "choice and consequences" not "motivation, action and consequences". Because the game can't assume motive, it can only react to what you "do" in the game - the choice.

Amentep, you aren't being this nitpicky are you? Maybe? I've had to read some of these posts broken up a good deal so apologies if I've lost context. I think we may be talking about the same things but using different terminology. Right, that's railroading and generally bad (unless the entire game railroads so you know going in what to expect).

Eh, well its personal taste (and there's never any accounting for that, definitely not my own! ) However when people can see the spooning skeletons and connect to that, it brings the setting "to life" for them. Or when they can relate to a companion story and fill in the blanks of what wasn't said. Its one more way for story elements to draw players in. However your personal mileage with that may vary! That's a pretty direct comparison to the gutter, yes... I figured it was the easiest to visualize. Problem with print comparisons is that video games belong to the visual media spectrum and I think its harder to make analogies that are easy to grasp when you leave the visual. One of the best examples for visual inferences is from Hitch****. Take a picture of a man grinning, then cut to a baby and back to the man. The audience has a visual story from the pictures (typically of a dad looking at his child or something along those lines - fairly innocuous). Take the SAME picture of a man grinning but inter-cut it with a picture of a sexy, scantily clad woman now gives you a different view of the man's intent. The truth is the pictures may not have anything to do with one another. They may not have been taken in the same place at the same time; juxtaposition of images and the human brain's need to create connections is what creates the narrative.

Actually they have to write the players reactions in dialogue to other dialogue. Otherwise the game wouldn't be responsive in dialogue. So at least one situation you can't take a reaction not given to you by the devs (hence the complaints over certain dialogue systems where the picked choice doesn't match the tone/point of what is said - the devs give the players a reaction choice that they pick because its the closest fit only for it to not fit at all). Arguably there is no player reaction that the game makers didn't allow via creation (either intentionally or unintentionally). To use my FONV example (because I'm tired and don't want to think of another), when Vulpes tells me to kill him if I feel strongly against what they've done to Nipton, the fact that I can pull out a gun and shoot him in the face is part of the games design. They could have made him unkillable, or scripted Vulpes and crew to leave Nipton without the PC reacting. That they didn't allows me to choose that reaction (and subsequently the world will react to that action). What the game makers can't write (and shouldn't assume) is the players motive; my reason for face-shooting Vulpes will always remain my own.

What's the point of flying in an isometric game? I'd imagine part of the point of an isometric game is not having to worry about a 3rd axis. With pre-rendered backgrounds to accommodate flying you'd at the very least have to create singular maps that were multiple stories high... I don't get it. Am I missing something?

Only bug I remember in AP was one where at a certain point after loading a particular area, I could backtrack and a door should have closed behind me, but didn't so you could walk off the map.

Hint more, I'm lost in your devious analogy. English not my first language and all that jazz... Its an analogy to comic art. Comic art is a series of sequential images that tie together to form a narrative; because it is static image the reader's imagination has to fill in the action going on between the panels. The area between the panels is referred to as "the gutter" between panels, thus the imagined connection between panel A and panel B is what the reader invests in "the gutter". From a video game perspective, this might be something like in BG2 when your party is traveling for a day (or so) from Athkatla to Umar Hills (IIRC), the player might assume, conjecture or imagine that the party might have conversations, or camp, or whatever during the trip that happens between "gather your party to venture forth" and arrival in Umar Hills. The trip doesn't exist in the game, only in the mind of the player. Other people will play the game and not assume anything happened during the trip since for them the game only exists based on their explicit input and what they see. This is where comic art storytelling and video game storytelling differ, since comic art storytelling can't exist without an assumption of action happening that you don't see, whereas I'm not 100% sure the same can be said for video games (although certainly there are those who do "expand on the action" that could happen "off-screen"). EDIT: poor grammar

I seemed to recall having high sneak allowed me to run and hide from one of the bosses. Yeah he still came after me but couldn't see me until he got close, and it allowed me time to let my gun skills come back active (or to hit him with grenades) and then run off and hide elsewhere on the map. Personally I appreciate the game allowing me to have a giant beard and wear a swamp hat.

An NPC can assume (or if you prefer, infer) the PC's motivations - they can't KNOW it. I suppose for better C&C the developers should allow the PC to correct the NPC on their inference vs what the PC intended, but ultimately the simpler (to implement) reaction is for the NPCs to react to the actions - not why unless the story itself provides a greater context. But why can the game assume you inputing the "whys" is "true"? If I shoot my wife and the police come and I say she tried to stab me with a knife, that doesn't make my motivation true even though I stated them. By stating intentions to an NPC a PC isn't nailing an intention down, they're presenting an intention they want the NPC to believe they have. Therefore, again, the game can only react to what the PC does (in this case, indicate a motive) but not why they actually did it. The assumption you're making is that the player (and by extention the PC) can't lie to make themselves look better (or because they don't have the option that fits their motive). If I help a peasant who I have some vague intel may be inherting some money and tell them its because I hate injustice, then later the peasant is revealed to be the last of the scions of a royal house and I ask for some money from the royal treasury and its given to me, what is my motivation? I said its because I hate injustice, but if I know the guy is getting money and accept it was I motivated by greed? Your way would assume that I did it because I hate injustice...but maybe I just told the peasant that so that they'd think I was a great guy worth giving money to down the road if my intel panned out. I had always assumed the trauma of being ripped from the force had made some of the memories of the Exile lost as well. In fact I thought it was stated (but perhaps I just inferred it?) I think I understand the point; I still think there can be value in romances, but I'd argue they shouldn't be done at the expense of having a well-realized NPC as well. I'd disagree with that design point, though. However the more specific features, quests, character relationships become the less prioritized they should be, I'd think. I think I'm being pretty objective considering the pros and cons of implementing romances into a game of this scope with a limited budget. It's just not practical. And yes the best way to make the game is to not have romances so welcome to anti-romance side. Hahah, not really what I meant. I can't class myself as anti-romance even if I will admit there would be a lot of pitfalls (time investment/resources in dev, careful planning, very specific NPC perspective framework) with implementing them "properly" (or at least what I see as properly).

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

I'm not sure that I really understand your point here; there's a difference between someone's past being important to them vs being important to other people. I never got a feeling that the PC in KotR2 was straight-jacketed by the past ("you are always fundamentally you, even if you don't remember what you've done"), only that the past was always there and those people who knew the past would react to that, rather than who you are. Or am I missing your point?

Okay fair enough; I understand you don't believe its technically possible. I'm not convinced it is/isn't (we seem to be okay with non-romance relationships but that may also be because some non-romance relationships are inherently shallow so depth is less of an issue?) but have always accepted that it might be. Or even that it might be technically possible but so resource intensive to "do right" that its not worth it. So again I'm not for mandating romances, either, only including them if they "make sense". Why do they need to appeal to a large amount of people? I don't understand the mentality that some content can't be created for a game that makes sense for the game but that the player may not ever see based on how they view/play their character. If I make a choice and kill an NPC who would have given a quest later on, I've just locked myself out from that quest. That doesn't mean I think the quest should not be created, another quest giver created so I can still access the quest content or the quest giver made immortal. If I play a celibate monk, what purpose is creating a brothel in the game? Well obviously for those people who want to roleplay in other ways than as a celibate monk. Again the content is there because it makes sense (if its included) not necessarily so everyone can ring all the bells to the end. In my opinion at least. *shrug* Beyond technical limitations - which as someone who doesn't make games I've always accepted that there may be practical considerations that just make "doing it right" impossible - I'd think most of the rest of this debate is subjective rather than objective. Anyhow, I'd class myself as being pro-romance in games (provided it makes sense for the plot and characters of the RPG), and I wouldn't be upset about a romance that could fail because of things outside my choice, because it was still ultimately my choice to pursue the relationship that can't work. Certainly this would alter replays (like knowing Yoshimo is going to betray you alters BG2 replays), but I'm not convinced that should be a consideration as to whether its "good" or "bad". Then again I'm also for a game not having any romances if that's the way to make the best game, so...

I'd like to think it'd be more complex than "Joe the Stabby hits -100 influence, Joe the Stabby STABS YOU", but can see the concern of metagaming in this aspect. Ideally I was thinking along the lines of some kind of NPC satisfaction scale that wouldn't be based on any one factor but might include several - like the PC-NPC influence, whether the NPC approves of the rest of the NPCs in the party (interparty friction) or some particular quests the NPC might feel strongly about and what they'd think of the resolution, or something.

That's actually why I was suggesting removing it from being hard scripted to being down to party influence. Ie certain character may / may not betray you due to low influence with them. In fact I used Yoshimo so little after his betrayal, I forgot he betrayed the PC when I was making this thread...