"The Academy" conundrum

[Llyranor]

I'd be interested to know a bit more about your project, how far you are in it, etc. Haha, you're finally officially teaming up with Magical Volo, eh? Magical Volo as main coder, R00FLES. That being said, LilacSoul's script generator is a boon. Good thing I have some skilled programmers to abuse, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no spoon... Yet. That is to say, the basic goal which we have set up - and I think Volourn would agree here - is that we will do our best in creating a module which we like. For the record, my admitedly ambitious plan is to combine the uniqueness of Torment's gameworld, and Arcanum's take on technology. And a fair bit of their storytelling and roleplaying.

 

I could go on about the plans we have and the ideas I've been developing but we would be discussing just that: ideas. I wouldn't mind presenting them but they are still at their infancy, and if there's one thing I would like to avoid is to hype this before development has even begun (not that I'd hype it after it's begun, though).

 

Then again, with Volourn on board that might be hard - his name alone will propel this module's fame into great heights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not so much interested in the ideas as the philosophy behind designing such a mod. What would be your focus in terms of storytelling and roleplaying?

[metadigital]

...

Case in point, rewarding failure when appropriate = good. It's much better than simply making the player reload because s/he didn't get what s/he wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you can crack that nut, then you are onto a winner.

[EnderAndrew]

If there is only one clear objective and only two outcomes then the game will be measured in terms of failure and success. Otherwise you might just have alternate outcomes.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What would be your focus in terms of storytelling and roleplaying?

 

While I can see some virtues in a storytelling model that leads players trough a narrow path, trying to make a story revolve around the player; I can also see several downfalls in this. That's why we're going for a middle ground. We plan on developing a story that has a definite beggining and a definite end, from which the PC cannot escape; but to give enough expression to the players so the PC's advancement and destiny is ultimately up to them.

 

We're also playing around with the concept of making the PC both important and secondary to the story. The PC will be alien to the gameworld, easilly abusable and exploitable by some, feared and disliked by others. He'll be a pawn for several entities, but this does not preclude him making himself relevant in the world. Again, this will be up to the player, and we plan on making it so depending on his attitude troughout the game, the PC can fall under the shadows of greater beings or outright match them in power.

 

There will be an overaching plot from which the player cannot escape, and while there are common story elements such as what one would call a hero and a villain, we hope to make it less standard than what it seems at first glance. The story will focus more on the feud between the so-called hero and the so-called villain, and while the PC's accidental involvement between their dispute will gradually become more important, it still won't be about the "chosen one who must save the world". Rather, we want to make the player be shown both sides so he can make his own mind about who is right - and who he'd like to support. If he wants to support either, that is. There'll be enough reasons for either scenario.

 

I think it's safe to say the larger part of the story will be a guideline; it will only become the driving force of the game into its later stages.

 

 

As for roleplaying, we want to make the player experience the gameworld, we want to put the world back into gameworld. Not just seeing the sights and greeting the locals: we want to do our best in creating a place where the player can interact with everything (that is humanly possible to allow for), learning and questioning what he comes upon. I think nearly everything will have its own story which the player can learn about, and even influence to a degree, be it something as simple as an NPC or as complex as a city. Wheter you're talking to a dwarf, orc or dragonkin, or are just plane hopping, we want to make the player experience it in several ways.

 

Through some of this we plan on including situation which will enable the player to form the PC's own identity, be it trough actions or inactions. Deciding on wheter one should slay an innocent in order to save hundreds can have consequences as dramatic as just standing and watching an old man being robbed. But ultimately none of these will ever be negative to the point of making progression a pain in the butt. While some decisions will make it harder on the PC, advancing will still very much be possible.

 

In short, we want to make a module that's fun to play, and roleplay.

 

 

Also, shrimp.

[Llyranor]

R00FLES

That sounds pretty cool. Very cool indeed.

 

Having grown up on console RPGs before tackling PC RPGs, my approach and expectations to RPGs is a bit different. Frankly, I'm pretty much dissatisfied with the way EVERY game in the industry so far has implemented storytelling (though I can enjoy them regardless). I'm not very fond of quite many gaming conventions, and feel they really detract from the storytelling.

 

As a storytelling medium, I feel gaming can go a long way, ultimately having the potential of being more involving than books or movies. "If I wanted a story, I'd read a book." is a valid argument, but that doesn't mean it is the only right perspective. I think many game stories suffer BECAUSE they are games. And yet, it shouldn't be this way. Xenogears' tedious gameplay made me not appreciate the game as much as if, say, it were an anime. Its game elements, effectively, got in the way of the story. Of course, the argument could go either way, and I suppose many gamers may feel that it should be the story that doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. Again, I don't see why it doesn't have to be this way for EVERY game. Even the beloved Torment falls victim; there were moments where I felt its nature as a game detracted from the story ("Why did I have to H&S my way through that area again?"). And yet, one reason why I loved Torment's story so much was BECAUSE it was a game. I felt many choices TNO made were my own - it being a game effectively made me identify with the protagonist that much more. It made the ending that much more touching as well. PST, I suppose, is an example of gaming having the potential of being the ultimate storytelling medium, despite its flaws.

 

On the other side of the spectrum (as opposed to the completely linear nature of books where you can only be passive), there's PnP. Pretty involving, with the story having the capacity of adapting to your every actions. Some PC RPG devs try to mimic this, but I personally feel this isn't what we should be aiming for, as it's a futile goal. Why opt for a lesser alternative when you could just as well play PnP and have *absolute* choice? Instead, I feel gaming can be used to enhance storytelling, in a more structured way than PnP (structure can be good for a story, it can reflect what the writer wants to project to you, all within the controlled setting of an RPG), more akin to a book - the difference being that YOU are the protagonist, as opposed to you wishing you were.

 

If we take lessons from both PC and console RPGs, we can promote storytelling more akin to console RPGs (I'm not praising so much their actual stories as their methods of telling it), and add in a roleplaying element to involve the player even more and to ENHANCE the story, then you get the best of both worlds. Granted, I'm not a hardcore PC RPGer as much as many others, and so don't value roleplaying for THE SAKE of roleplaying as much as others may. Instead, I value roleplaying in the context of storytelling in order to reinforce and enhance the latter.

 

Cutscenes (not FMVs) in console RPGs seem more cinematic. For example, when the party gathers and discusses what to do next. Character/party interaction = good. The downside, of course, being that the player doesn't actually interact. On the other hand, you see the protagonist interacting more realistically to the other characters and to the environment. You rarely see this in PC RPGs.

 

In PC RPGs, too often for me is it that you're either being spoonfed/led by the nose, or it's you who drives everything. A cutscene involving the PC where control is taken away from the player is BAD, when this wasn't the case a minute ago. That's poor storytelling, given the context of the PC being controllable otherwise. Sometimes it's the opposite, you and you alone are the driving force for whatever happens. 'Chosen One' syndrome. Save people/cities/worlds completely on your own while the rest of the world remains passive and awaits for your rescue. You're free to do whatever you want, to the DETRIMENT of the story ("I don't care if my vault needs a water chip, I'm going to kill this dragon, and it makes sense only in a gaming context --> this would never be acceptable without proper justification in any other medium"). Initiate a deep meaningful conversation with an important NPC? No problem! Suddenly the world shuts down and it's a 1-on-1 convo. Worse still, it's a Q&A session ("Who are you?" "What is your job?" "Have you heard of this name?" "What can you tell me about this water?") --> this is completely unrealistic and is NOT how the natural flow of a conversation should go; it feels segmented and is accepted ONLY in a gaming context. I'd be pretty pissed-off if dialogue was so segmented and unnatural in a novel. And in the meantime, your party members shut down and say nothing.

 

Which brings me to another complaint - party members. Be it novels or movies or even PnP, characters have actual personalities THAT DON'T SHUT DOWN at random moments. In console RPGs, party members say nothing when not in 'cutscene mode' (ie. when talking to random NPCs). In PC RPGs, they often say nothing unless directly talked to. Sometimes you'd be lucky enough to have some random banter initiated btw 2 NPCs, but this is minimal. TOO minimal. Some people may be satisfied with it - I'm not. Sometimes they'll even add in to a convo you're having with another NPC. If you're lucky, it might even be a two-liner. Again, NOT ENOUGH. Even the famous convo with Rav** in PST was pretty much just btw you and her. Your party members were just passive bystanders.

 

That being said, characters from PC RPGs have the potential to be really fleshed-out. I love talking to Dak'kon and Morte, discovering more about them, etc. Now, imagine if their personality was reflected in other parts of the game, in a manner that would be more akin to realistic behavior.

 

If you talk to some NPC on the street, to investigate something or look for useful info, your party members should jump in if they have something insightful to add, and I won't believe that they never have anything insightful to add. Heck, it shouldn't always be insightful, it should just reflect normal interaction. If you come across something new, I'd expect the party members to be curious as well, not just the PC (akin to RP's "Not just seeing the sights and greeting the locals: we want to do our best in creating a place where the player can interact with everything " comment). The party members are not the PC's slaves (but they could be!), the PC is just ANOTHER character in the party. S/he should have as much say as the others (not being led by the nose with no choices --> complete linearity; if this were the case, the story wouldn't be taking advantage of the gaming nature of the story to enhance it) (also, not having complete control over the choices of the party - other members' opinions should be as important as yours --> your should be able to discuss amongst yourselves in a civilized manner.... if you want to). The world does not revolve around the PC, and the PC does not resolve solely around the world. They are separate entities in a relationship where meaningful interactions are possible.

 

Of course, all I've PMSed about has exceptions, but the bulk of the medium is still suffering from these problems, and what's available so far is just not good enough. Someone has to try to for at least just one game, maybe, to rectify them. This is what I'm attempting, perhaps. I'm not trying to design the ultimate RPG. I'm trying to design a story, that HAPPENS to be from a game, and not a game that happens to have a story. A story, perhaps, that can FORGET it's from a game (and avoid gaming conventions that detract from proper storytelling as much as possible), but never forgets that it can be ENHANCED *because* it's from a game. If the story sucks, I'd want it to be because my storytelling skills suck, NOT because it's a game story. And that is the message I'd want to deliver.

 

Hmm, maybe it's also this different approach that attracts resistance to the way I'm tackling the intro. Chapters can go on in novels, for example, where nothing plot-wise "happens", and yet those can remain compelling, offer insightful character development, etc.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Everything you've said just turns me on.

[Llyranor]

Not creepy.

 

As I said, though, I feel that promoting roleplaying just for the the sake of roleplaying isn't the way I want to approach design (Morrowind = fun!), hence why people may disagree with my way of thinking. Everything being done would be for the purpose of driving the story forward (if that's the direction the story is going). In that sense, storytelling > roleplaying, but storytelling + roleplaying > storytelling.

 

In a sense, maybe I'm emphasizing depth of roleplaying over breadth. Instead of throwing the player in a world where s/he's free to explore everything at will, with 100+ quests available, all of which offer the combat/stealth/diplomacy triad of options, I'm focusing more on making it story-based and story-RELEVANT.

 

I think roleplaying should be pertaining to the actual ACTIONS the PC is allowed in any given situation, and thus I also want FLESHED-OUT situations. I doubt quests that can be over in 10 minutes are very thought-provoking, and I'm sure how much roleplaying is really involved ("Okay, I engage the enemy in combat!" "Okay, I sneak to my objective!" "Okay, I choose the more intelligent-sounding dialogue choice!" "Quest complete!") - could feel a bit automated. This does nothing in terms of progressing the story. And if it IS the story, then it's a pretty poor story when it can be resolved so easily.

 

'Roleplaying' should consist of more than just choosing which 'path' amongst those three to take. Having the power of 'persuasion' shouldn't just be a matter of choosing ONE dialogue that's vastly superior to the others. Conversation should more dynamic, and shouldn't be only an issue of you trying to convince the NPC. Conversation should be more free-flowing, and FEEL natural. An instance where the story suffers because of roleplaying is when such conversations feel so segmented and don't make sense. Just choosing the more persuasive choice shouldn't make you the winner. Persuading people shouldn't be easy. In a sense, I blame the RPG systems being implemented in many of those I'm faulting here. Having one 'Speech' or 'Persuade' skill usually amounts to only one correct diplomatic option being made available, even though this shouldn't be the case. Worse thing is that it's basically a 1v1 battle between you and the NPC. Party members don't exist!

 

I feel the same way about stealth. In games as is, it's just a gameplay mechanic. Activate sneak, maneuver around NPCs, quest complete! Stealth should be implemented in a storytelling manner. "You hide behind the crate. You hear footsteps approaching in your general direction" "I remain silent, hoping nothing happens." "I remove my clothes and dance." "I draw my sword and reveal myself." "I throw a small rock at the far side of the room, in a direction in which the NPC wouldn't see me if he checked there." "Magical Volo, draw his attention, while I try to sneak behind him." Your actual real DECISIONS should be more important than the number next to your sneak skill. Relying on numbers is 'roleplaying' (if at all) for its own sake. Roleplaying through making meaningful decisions is what matters to me.

 

Again, combat suffers from the same thing. It shouldn't just be a matter of attacking. There should be ample tactical decisions you should be able to make to give yourself the advantage before the battle ever starts. It would make sense to want to avoid battle if at all possible as well, given the potential lethal outcome. Even the mightiest of warriors should think twice before jumping into a fight. I don't want to make it feel like a game - where combat is something trivial. A fight with just one NPC should be a big deal. Killing that NPC should be an even bigger deal, just like it is in RL.

 

I'm generalizing by talking about these three paths, but anyway.

 

Bottom line is that going through a single two-roomed building with one or two guards should have PLENTY of roleplaying opportunities. Roleplaying DEPTH. One may argue about the outcome 'being the same', but I feel roleplaying lies in the details. You choose your character's options. On the other hand, if the building and its two rooms are not pertinent to the story, it shouldn't be presented in the game. I'm not going to add countless dungeons or areas that are ultimately irrelevant to further gameplay to the detriment of story. I repeat myself, but roleplaying in a storytelling setting.

 

In the setting I'm doing for the character (him/her being a new recruit for the military), I'm allowing it so that quests feel more natural than just some random adventurer accepting random quests. "You, go patrol the streets with NPC X" "Fine, JERK." This allows you to both flesh out character development with NPC X ("I hate patrol duty. It feels my talent is put to waste." "Look on the bright side, we're being paid to do nothing." blah blah), and allows quests to feel natural. A burglary in the making, a damsel crying in distress. You're patrolling, you're supposed to investigate these events. Otherwise, you could get assigned missions. Thievery, murder investigations, hostage situations, protecting political figures, etc. All these would be opportunities for the PC to learn more about his comrades as well.

[Guest Fishboot]

I know you have a lot to say, but could you stretch out your posts over a long period of time a bit? I find myself wanting to reply to bits and pieces of stuff you've said but I don't want to tangentialize the thread by ignoring 9/10ths of your posts. But on the other hand I can't craft a holistic reponse, so I'm stuck.

[Llyranor]

Wouldn't you be 'ignoring' the same proportion of my posts whether I split them into multiple posts or not?

[Guest Fishboot]

Wouldn't you be 'ignoring' the same proportion of my posts whether I split them into multiple posts or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it's not that I ignore them, it's that I can't mentally synthesize so many points at once without being able to ask questions about/promote discussion of individual points - which I can't do because I don't want to narrow the focus of the discussion (inevitable because of the structure of the forum).

[Llyranor]

That shouldn't really be an issue. Discussions go on tangents all the time, you shouldn't be worrying about narrowing down the focus.

[Darth Barth]

The only thing I can say about tutorial beginnings is this: Do not have those that complete the tutorial gain something extra. For example, in the Bloodlines tutorial you gain an extra exp point. For completists like me, this presents a problem when I remake a character. Kotor 2 had a great tutorial in that the rewards you got were just items and it didnt focus on the main character.

[Azarkon]

Sony and brain wave ...

 

I hope they develop it.

 

Personally, I welcome the possibility of full-sensory virtual worlds in our lifetimes. Damn those sci-fi novels have got me excited as to the prospects.

 

And the dangers.

[Drakron]

Fable had a very good start, we started as a child and then we could achive the quest goal in diferent ways.

 

Problem was that it gone downhill from then ...

 

I think Fable did something right, if we start as a child we can build a character as we see fit, and later play the gane.

 

The problem is that it takes some freedom for the player, you cannot think your character is something else but what the game allows him to start as, of course most CRPGs follow the JRPG lead idea of playing (to some degree) a pre-generated character, perhaps at a character generation we could select background and the game having several "starting paths" that start to converge until we reach just the final path.

 

Problem is CRPG developers are more into copy Final Fantasy that anything else ...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I am Role-Player's icon. Worship me, peon!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pretty spot on, Llyranor. I see we share some ideas and views. For combat in particular, I had some plans regarding situations which would rely more on the player's use of his surroundings and tactics rather than focusing strictly on firepower.

[Llyranor]

Yeah, too bad the industry as a whole doesn't share those views.

[metadigital]

...

'Roleplaying' should consist of more than just choosing which 'path' amongst those three to take. Having the power of 'persuasion' shouldn't just be a matter of choosing ONE dialogue that's vastly superior to the others. ... Having one 'Speech' or 'Persuade' skill usually amounts to only one correct diplomatic option being made available, even though this shouldn't be the case. Worse thing is that it's basically a 1v1 battle between you and the NPC. Party members don't exist!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point you have made. I agree that the problem seems to be a very flat, one-dimensional approach: a "dice-roll-versus-defence-score" paradigm.

 

I am not sure if adding more feats is the answer, though. Perhaps not using the existing feats in the clumsy way they are being used at the moment is a better solution?

...

I feel the same way about stealth. In games as is, it's just a gameplay mechanic. Activate sneak, maneuver around NPCs, quest complete! Stealth should be implemented in a storytelling manner. "You hide behind the crate. You hear footsteps approaching in your general direction" "I remain silent, hoping nothing happens." "I remove my clothes and dance." "I draw my sword and reveal myself." "I throw a small rock at the far side of the room, in a direction in which the NPC wouldn't see me if he checked there." "Magical Volo, draw his attention, while I try to sneak behind him." Your actual real DECISIONS should be more important than the number next to your sneak skill. Relying on numbers is 'roleplaying' (if at all) for its own sake. Roleplaying through making meaningful decisions is what matters to me. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, this is very good. It is surprising that no-one has made these innovations, yet. Of course, it requires thinking outside the box, and it would mean changing the established multiple-choice selection mechanic for dialogue, too. It might be as simple as adding some actions and dialogue together, such as:

[Have a member sneak around and try to steal the key whilst the PC talks]

[Have a member sneak around and try knock the NPC out whilst the PC talks]

[Have a member run up and intimidate the NPC whilst the PC talks]

Then ...

[Wisdom + Persuasion] If you want, I'll swim across that crocodile infested swamp and bring back your stolen lute, but I'll need a favour ...

[Persuasion] Tell me what you want and I'll help you. Maybe together we can help each other?

[strength + Intimidation]Give me the key, or I'll make you wish the thieves had taken your life as well as your lute.

[Dexerity] Attempt to steal the key.

 

But it's clumsy using the existing process. It would be better to have another interface; perhaps (although I am loathe to use the phrase) a "minigame" of different type of skills (puzzles and feats, with different ways to complete the game and different ramifications for each method).

...

Again, combat suffers from the same thing. It shouldn't just be a matter of attacking. There should be ample tactical decisions you should be able to make to give yourself the advantage before the battle ever starts. It would make sense to want to avoid battle if at all possible as well, given the potential lethal outcome. Even the mightiest of warriors should think twice before jumping into a fight. I don't want to make it feel like a game - where combat is something trivial. A fight with just one NPC should be a big deal. Killing that NPC should be an even bigger deal, just like it is in RL.

 

I'm generalizing by talking about these three paths, but anyway. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't argue with this, either. It's just plain common sense. Because combat has been trivialised, then the audience treats it trivially.

...

Bottom line is that going through a single two-roomed building with one or two guards should have PLENTY of roleplaying opportunities. Roleplaying DEPTH. One may argue about the outcome 'being the same', but I feel roleplaying lies in the details. You choose your character's options.  On the other hand, if the building and its two rooms are not pertinent to the story, it shouldn't be presented in the game. I'm not going to add countless dungeons or areas that are ultimately irrelevant to further gameplay to the detriment of story. I repeat myself, but roleplaying in a storytelling setting. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true of stories. How many times during a thriller in the cinema have you hoped that the credits would role, because that meant that the heroes were safe, and no more ill could befall them?

 

There should be an almost adventure-like focus on plot and character. Note that character is important though, otherwise we are stuck with the Cleesesque notion of "here is a plot point" everytime the plot is advanced (which is exactly what John Cleese successfully avoided in his Fawlty Towers).

...

In the setting I'm doing for the character (him/her being a new recruit for the military), I'm allowing it so that quests feel more natural than just some random adventurer accepting random quests. "You, go patrol the streets with NPC X" "Fine, JERK." This allows you to both flesh out character development with NPC X ("I hate patrol duty. It feels my talent is put to waste." "Look on the bright side, we're being paid to do nothing." blah blah), and allows quests to feel natural. A burglary in the making, a damsel crying in distress. You're patrolling, you're supposed to investigate these events. Otherwise, you could get assigned missions. Thievery, murder investigations, hostage situations, protecting political figures, etc. All these would be opportunities for the PC to learn more about his comrades as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This last bit has already been done, from a Paladin perspective, in Twilight, Rick Burton's community module for NwN (first in the series; Mr Burton is now employed by Bioware).

[Llyranor]

Good point you have made. I agree that the problem seems to be a very flat, one-dimensional approach: a "dice-roll-versus-defence-score" paradigm.

 

I am not sure if adding more feats is the answer, though. Perhaps not using the existing feats in the clumsy way they are being used at the moment is a better solution?

You're right. Simply having more feats isn't the solution, and I wasn't implying as such. The problem is how to have them implemented. This is just a personal design decision, but I don't even plan on having a specific 'diplomacy' skill, as I would otherwise be implementing it constantly in virtuall all aspects of dialogue in the game, in a consistent fashion - and NOT as a one-choice option which is right whereas the other options are wrong. It would be too much of a bias towards diplomatic characters, when comparing to other skills. But that's just me focusing on heavy dialogue in my game, just a personal design decision. Persuasion wouldn't be a skill or a feat, it'd be an active process in which you try to persuade the NPC that your way of seeing things is correct, and you do that by convincing them through a logical choice of dialogue, not by having X skills.

 

Again, this is very good. It is surprising that no-one has made these innovations, yet. Of course, it requires thinking outside the box, and it would mean changing the established multiple-choice selection mechanic for dialogue, too. It might be as simple as adding some actions and dialogue together, such as:

[Have a member sneak around and try to steal the key whilst the PC talks]

[Have a member sneak around and try knock the NPC out whilst the PC talks]

[Have a member run up and intimidate the NPC whilst the PC talks]

Then ...

[Wisdom + Persuasion] If you want, I'll swim across that crocodile infested swamp and bring back your stolen lute, but I'll need a favour ...

[Persuasion] Tell me what you want and I'll help you. Maybe together we can help each other?

[strength + Intimidation]Give me the key, or I'll make you wish the thieves had taken your life as well as your lute.

[Dexerity] Attempt to steal the key.

 

But it's clumsy using the existing process. It would be better to have another interface; perhaps (although I am loathe to use the phrase) a "minigame" of different type of skills (puzzles and feats, with different ways to complete the game and different ramifications for each method).

Something like that. I wouldn't go as far as make it a 'minigame', though. That just makes it a game. I wouldn't have all options be available to the player in every given situation, and have the player 'play the minigame' of figuring out the proper sequence in order to 'win'. Each offered solution should be something unique specifically crafted by the developer. If a choice is there, I'd want it to be there because choosing it will lead to something unique. Making a minigame out of this wouldn't work in terms of what I'm trying to convey. Not a bad idea, though. Again, just my personal design philosophy. The minigame idea sorts of reminds me of the speech 'battles' in one of the threads a while ago, that some MMORPG was implementing --> which had its merits, but again, my problem with it would be that it wouldn take away from the storytelling aspects of having real dialogue crafted specifically by the developer.

[metadigital]

...

Again, this is very good. It is surprising that no-one has made these innovations, yet. Of course, it requires thinking outside the box, and it would mean changing the established multiple-choice selection mechanic for dialogue, too. It might be as simple as adding some actions and dialogue together, such as:

[Have a member sneak around and try to steal the key whilst the PC talks]

[Have a member sneak around and try knock the NPC out whilst the PC talks]

[Have a member run up and intimidate the NPC whilst the PC talks]

Then ...

[Wisdom + Persuasion] If you want, I'll swim across that crocodile infested swamp and bring back your stolen lute, but I'll need a favour ...

[Persuasion] Tell me what you want and I'll help you. Maybe together we can help each other?

[strength + Intimidation]Give me the key, or I'll make you wish the thieves had taken your life as well as your lute.

[Dexerity] Attempt to steal the key.

 

But it's clumsy using the existing process. It would be better to have another interface; perhaps (although I am loathe to use the phrase) a "minigame" of different type of skills (puzzles and feats, with different ways to complete the game and different ramifications for each method).

Something like that. I wouldn't go as far as make it a 'minigame', though. That just makes it a game. I wouldn't have all options be available to the player in every given situation, and have the player 'play the minigame' of figuring out the proper sequence in order to 'win'. Each offered solution should be something unique specifically crafted by the developer. If a choice is there, I'd want it to be there because choosing it will lead to something unique. Making a minigame out of this wouldn't work in terms of what I'm trying to convey. Not a bad idea, though. Again, just my personal design philosophy. The minigame idea sorts of reminds me of the speech 'battles' in one of the threads a while ago, that some MMORPG was implementing --> which had its merits, but again, my problem with it would be that it wouldn take away from the storytelling aspects of having real dialogue crafted specifically by the developer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I didn't mean the dreaded Leisuresuit Larry "guide the sperm into the canal by button-mashing" type minigame.

 

More the sort of word puzzle, like working out the K1 murder suspects on Dantooine. it was just a little awkward using the dialogue tree as the tool, so if there were a better way to interface with it, then that would be better for gameplay.

 

For example, until Ren

[Llyranor]

Ah, so basically the same conveyed information and options as the current dialogue tree format, but with an improved interface to make it less cumbersome. That's not a bad idea, actually. And with NWN2 having a GUI that can be edited, this might actually go somewhere. I'll keep this mind - we'll see if it ever goes anywhere.

[metadigital]

Precisely.

 

 

 

 

Um, Llyranor, what is that splashing over the figure on your avatar? It could be water, or sprite, or ..?

[alanschu]

[Dexerity] Attempt to steal the key.

 

 

Have you read my design doc????

 

I also am planning stuff like this too. It'll be a race between Llyranor and Co. and my group......it doesn't matter who's the best, it just matters who's first!!! :D

[Llyranor]

Heh. I'm in no rush to get anything done. I'll be surprised if we're done by 2010.

 

For the avatar: don't ask

[alanschu]

I have a red X for your avatar

[Llyranor]

Should be fixed.

 

BTW, alandude, what's your mod about?