Mythic structure in RPGs/video games in general

[Sisay]

I like the Geneforge series a lot in this respect because it's at least less clear who the good guys are. The Awakened seem to be the most reasonable ones but it's also made painfully clear that they are insane to think the Shapers would deal with them as equals. Not to mention they have their own little army of Drakons in Geneforge 2, who's really in charge there? The Takers are ruthless but is their cause not just? Is there another way but war? On the other hand, look at what the serviles brought upon themselves when they were left alone. Serviles killing each other, dangerous experiments with little regards to safety, rogue creatures running loose everywhere. Do they not need someone to keep order? Were the Shapers not right to guard their secrets?

 

Geneforge has the best faction system and multiple endings of the cRPG's I've played. I also really liked how the canisters corrupt you and make you arrogant. Playing a power hungry bastard has never been so much fun.

[metadigital]

WoW has a nice realistic historical basis, methinks.

 

Like the colonial powers in conflict with the indigenous peoples of the lands that they conquer, there are at least two sides to every story.

 

Speaking of ambiguous moral characters, what about Civilization? The player is free to invade, slaughter and commit genocide equally as apalling as anything the Nazis, Pol Pott, Stalin, Milosovic, Hutus, even the Romans, did. Might makes Right. Interesting morality tale for the kiddies there ...

[Cantousent]

The point is that the hardened anti-hero is overplayed these days also. The sassy jerk with a heart of gold is overplayed, sure. ...But the ugly jerk with a black heart who does something that needs to be done isn't exactly fresh. There really isn't any combination that provides anything so fresh that someone else can't cite an example of him from literature. Folks looking to deny a creative idea will always find examples that "prove" that the author stole the concept from someone else.

 

Here's one I'd like to see. The hero really is the good guy. I mean, he's super good. He's so damned good and sensitive that every evil act he witnesses and every battle against evil in which he participates, he loses a little of his sanity. The game could include a "sanity" value or some such. Instead of the vampire trying to retain his huminity, the hero is trying to lose just enough that his war against evil doesn't push him over the edge. Blood provides the impetus for frenzy in both cases.

 

The player must make sure the character must make tough decisions, lest he finally break. Breaking could result in a few different things. The character might find his dialogue options chaged from goodness in light to jaded ugliness. He might become a coward and run from fights. He might crack in a much more insidious way by assuming everything he deems evil must be detroyed. There is nothing more to decide.

 

If we go with the idea of factions and revolving antagonists, then a switch in his sanity value might put him into another faction.

 

Another good anti-hero is the fellow who is a complete coward but, for whatever reason, still goes through with the mission. He is different from a real hero in that he never overcomes his fear, but is compelled by some outside source to complete the quest. ...Or, he might have an internal reason that overcomes his fear, but the reason is not heroic. For instance, he's a coward, but his greed is stronger and so he completes the quest.

[mkreku]

I'm more fond of the idea of an unlikely hero than an anti-hero myself.

 

GOTHIC!

[saintfrancisnudecenterfold]

If there are heroes that are emblematic of the mature modern, it is Leopold Bloom of the novel Ulysses by James Joyce and Molly Bloom of the same novel. Of course, they are Irish, but they are international without reservation.

 

As to computer games, I notice that the games that lack immersion are often too foolish to capitalise on the discussion of ideas or even lack entertainment value at all, whereas the games that are more immersive for reason of intelligent application of art often do not communicate anything besides values that are worthless to hold, ideas that are shallow at best, and characters that are insipid or loathsome.

 

The exception to this dullness is rare and in these, value is sporadic.

 

What has been said before in a game review long ago is, "It is as if the game designers ask us, would you wish to participate in a life full of loathsome folk who are either pointedly stupid or pressured into sporadic brutality, live in a framework of social interactions largely devoid of thoughtful and playful intricacies, or would you prefer to play a computer game about the same problems?"

 

The answer to this is, "Art is nurture." (who remembers where that quote is from and who coined it?)

 

I am sad to say that every computer game I've played seems to describe the desire to become a hermit and suggest to players that there is no hope to find friendly intelligent people, no hope to create a beautiful community of friends, no hope to temporarily escape the fact that waiting amid turmoil must exist for a time. The terrible thing about this is, it transcends the events in the story to the very gameplay and structure, as if screaming inside the game designer's head is "Domestic Dystopia is the vision of the Celestial Rose!"

 

Omnipresent dystopia is not verity nor sooth, is not true, is not a reality (although it could seem this way if a guy's being immobilised, beaten and pissed on).

 

To consider the human reality as evil is a very odd paradigm because friendships are possible, beautiful communities do not always shatter, and life does not ask you to live a specific story. Yes, the world will devour us, but no, this does not mean that everyone is wanting to tear your flesh with their teeth. If you're a designer of intentionally crappy games, some people might be looking for just this, but let's not stray down that path right now. While there are worse things in life than crappy computer games, such as the (political comment deleted at forum user's discretion), stereotypic television corporations, and actual harm.

 

Some modern gnostic faiths believe the vast substance of the universe is stupid, not evil, and the more intricate, specifically living substances are the intelligence of the universe, which is occasionally very stupid too yet is also occasionally very brilliant (and sometimes, perhaps rarely, nice).

 

Computer games can be pretty good. I liked the John Irving stuff in Baldur's Gate. I liked the Space Opera elements in Final Fantasy VII that were so well mixed with Borges -- event was fairly well placed. I liked that Final Fantasy Tactics reminded me of Alexandre Dumas. I adored the gameplay in the Total War series, which is everso much like one of the finest of strategic war games (wasn't the wargame developed by H.G. Wells?). All of these remind me of what J.M. DeMatteis did in the comicbook Moonshadow, which was in essence a Science Fiction retelling of Candide with Aquarian Age overtones. Even these had very shallow and stupid portions, and I do not mean the combat. In Baldur's Gate, the characterizations and situations were not broken between comedy and depth, but rather comedy and pitiful melodrama. In Final Fantasy VII, the characters were silhouettes without evident personality and all dialogue was spurious, devoid of interest, and simplestupidtalk. Final Fantasy Tactics was also plagued with the simplestupidtalk and lack of definition in personalities. The Total War series only fails on certain technical interpetations.

 

I must admit games such as Temple of Apshai, Alkalabeth, Ultima I, and Odessey: the Compleat Apventure were not so well formulated as Baldur's Gate, but also cost less. Text adventures had weak parsers and were often flawed in expectation of audience and delivery of response (and often playfully altered by computer store owners before the purchase).

 

I look at computer games and think: if I were healthier, more energetic, with the resources, training, personnel, and money to put together one of these, I'd make one. Yet I fear that if I tried, even with these to back me, I fear I'd do no better, be subject to a strange affliction, and end up without a soul, without my own hands, without the sentiments and quality concerns I presently have.

 

However, I suspect that there is a reason why certain elements in computer games are specifically weak. Is it that a corridor of advancement is pre-defined? Is it that we the consumers are thought by corporations to be walking through a trade camp that due to commercial tactic is arranged with both intentional finery and intentional flaws? Is it that some big ape is going to beat up game designers to a certain degree depending on how smart and know-it-all their work is? Maybe they prepare for the next generation and hope that by not covering all bases, they leave room for innovation? Is it an actual lack of time and funding? Is it that a legacy exists of primates, dolphins, feral adults, or toddling infants designing portions of computer games? Is it that money isn't really being used, and pseudocorporate presences are nostalgic for the time when money was worth something rather than being a mutual joke?

 

After all, there is usually a reason behind human doings, either discomfort or jubilation, sometimes psychology or dogma, sometimes just habit.

 

The reasoning behind all these outlooks and the reasoning as to alternate outlooks are not insensible, but human liberty, human intelligence, and human progress are usually good things. So is quality entertainment often a good thing.

[metadigital]

The point is that the hardened anti-hero is overplayed these days also.  The sassy jerk with a heart of gold is overplayed, sure.  ...But the ugly jerk with a black heart who does something that needs to be done isn't exactly fresh.  There really isn't any combination that provides anything so fresh that someone else can't cite an example of him from literature. Folks looking to deny a creative idea will always find examples that "prove" that the author stole the concept from someone else.

 

Here's one I'd like to see.  The hero really is the good guy.  I mean, he's super good.  He's so damned good and sensitive that every evil act he witnesses and every battle against evil in which he participates, he loses a little of his sanity.  The game could include a "sanity" value or some such.  Instead of the vampire trying to retain his huminity, the hero is trying to lose just enough that his war against evil doesn't push him over the edge.  Blood provides the impetus for frenzy in both cases.

 

The player must make sure the character must make tough decisions, lest he finally break.  Breaking could result in a few different things.  The character might find his dialogue options chaged from goodness in light to jaded ugliness.  He might become a coward and run from fights.  He might crack in a much more insidious way by assuming everything he deems evil must be detroyed.  There is nothing more to decide.

 

If we go with the idea of factions and revolving antagonists, then a switch in his sanity value might put him into another faction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brilliant. Like your Paladin/Avatar exemplar.

Another good anti-hero is the fellow who is a complete coward but, for whatever reason, still goes through with the mission.  He is different from a real hero in that he never overcomes his fear, but is compelled by some outside source to complete the quest.  ...Or, he might have an internal reason that overcomes his fear, but the reason is not heroic.  For instance, he's a coward, but his greed is stronger and so he completes the quest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Courage is not the absence of fear

[alanschu]

Wasn't there a famous WW2 quote from like Patton or something about how Courage is not the absence of fear, it's feeling the fear and doing it anyways.

[Gabrielle]

[metadigital]

...

As to computer games, I notice that the games that lack immersion are often too foolish to capitalise on the discussion of ideas or even lack entertainment value at all, whereas the games that are more immersive for reason of intelligent application of art often do not communicate anything besides values that are worthless to hold, ideas that are shallow at best, and characters that are insipid or loathsome.

 

The exception to this dullness is rare and in these, value is sporadic.

...

Omnipresent dystopia is not verity nor sooth, is not true, is not a reality[.]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find this lament ironic when I juxtapose a subsequent paragraph, above.

 

I am sad to say that every computer game I've played seems to describe the desire to become a hermit and suggest to players that there is no hope to find friendly intelligent people, no hope to create a beautiful community of friends, no hope to temporarily escape the fact that waiting amid turmoil must exist for a time.  The terrible thing about this is, it transcends the events in the story to the very gameplay and structure, as if screaming inside the game designer's head is "Domestic Dystopia is the vision of the Celestial Rose!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am struggling to distil your point, here, so I bet a lot of others are too. You might want to expand / elucidate a little.

Omnipresent dystopia is not verity nor sooth, is not true, is not a reality (although it could seem this way if a guy's being immobilised, beaten and pissed on).

 

To consider the human reality as evil is a very odd paradigm because friendships are possible, beautiful communities do not always shatter, and life does not ask you to live a specific story.  Yes, the world will devour us, but no, this does not mean that everyone is wanting to tear your flesh with their teeth. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, dystopian universes are prevalent because they provide the greatest raw material for heroic / epic narratives AND because the world is dystopian (and as far as theology is concerned will continue to be until the next coming of God / heaven on Earth). In fact I only know of ONE utopia EVER described in all the SF I have ever read.

I look at computer games and think: if I were healthier, more energetic, with the resources, training, personnel, and money to put together one of these, I'd make one.  Yet I fear that if I tried, even with these to back me, I fear I'd do no better, be subject to a strange affliction, and end up without a soul, without my own hands, without the sentiments and quality concerns I presently have. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just use Woody Allen's mantra: he makes films as a selfish, ignorant pawn at the mercy of fate. That is he makes films that appeal to him, for his enjoyment. If they happen to appeal to others, then that's terrific, because the resultant financial adjustments will help future film projects.

 

Or are you suggesting that ALL developers will become corrupt as a consequence of the development process?

 

Omnipresent dystopia is not verity nor sooth, is not true, is not a reality[.]

[Cantousent]

Before the message comes the fun. We might want to find meaning in our games, designers might want to put purpose in their work, but it is first and foremost a game.

 

*nods to the thread revolving around games as art*

 

Theater is art, but it's purpose is to entertain. That is purpose enough. The entertainment is the art. If you express meaningful ideas through your art, then so much the better.

[saintfrancisnudecenterfold]

"Be soft warm boobies to others and they'll be soft warm boobies to you."

- an old truism, not always true though

 

There are grades within those categories, defined on a Moor****ian law and chaos axis which indicates a preference for collective governance vs. individual freedom, but it doesn't delve much deeper than that.

 

I agree.

 

Michael Moor**** and Poul Anderson must be included together, as Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions is *probably* more influential on the Law-Chaos alignment issue. Poul Anderson's equation was simpler: humans were of Law, of Scientific Order, while faefolk and magic was of Chaos.

 

Mr. Sawyer, I'm afraid that you really, really are showing evidence of having never read the longer alignment descriptions in the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide. Put down that second edition book now. Pick up the first edition DM's Guide, find the subject of alignment in the index or contents, turn to the pages til you find the long descriptions of alignment that contain many anglic uses of Greek and Latin words, and READ THE DAMN THING.

 

In any case, to delve deeper than that: in D&D, Law is often the outlook that organization and unity of purpose often result in a strong and orthodox result that cannot be shifted from preferred situation quite so easily as Chaotic resolutions. Law seems firmer to the Lawful, more absolute and everpresent, as the primary effort of the Lawful is to make Law everpresent. That viance occurs among Lawful beings is only indication of the need for space and distance, an agreed upon convention that occurs whenever other conventions cannot be utilised. More often than not, Lawful beings do arrange tranquil contracts and assist eachother in systemization of the grand order, an order that might be considered to transcend individual interest and anything but perfect omniscience. However, medians, intermediaries, and partitions must exist as boundaries and these give every opportunity as well as extensive motivation for mutual respect to occur.

 

Chaos in D&D is usually the decision to remain somewhat free of structure in the realization that whim and randomization, liberty and individual outlook offer much more exemption from unwanted situations than a declaration, unshifting hierarchy, and identification with universal order. Hence, a more fluid approach would be a self-determination and a freedom that follow suit with ones own nature, and finding niches in a wilderness of choice as such options are understood to exist without cessation (but not always locally apparent and individually percieved).

 

You could stand to read through the long alignment descriptions in the DM's Guide first edition, Sawyer. Please. Read it. It's not Dianetics, don't worry. It's not math class for barbie dolls. It might save you the hassle of fallibility in matters of D&D alignment.

 

Certainly the published D&D settings that enjoy popularity fall back on these basic concepts. Most Zhentarim of the Forgotten Realms, the Scarlet Brotherhood of Greyhawk, and certainly characters like Strahd and Azalin from Ravenloft are "traditionally" evil.

 

One must also understand that in Greyhawk that even good characters were self-interested and focused on their own outlook and wants. However, I understand that each fantasist, each writer, each person has their own expression of these constants and themes.

 

Sawyer, please read the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide where the alignment rules are covered, the long alignment rules. Do not stray, do not be distracted, do not interpet this in any other way than how it is meant.

 

It is very important for your understanding of D&D alignment that you do this.

 

My typical outlook on Good in D&D is that it extends from love. Provided that in the game of D&D wonder and miracles are substantial portions of the fiction, the names of all the dead can be discovered and the dead may be brought to life (even the evil spirits) and sheltered, nursed to kindliness, and kept safe. The urge to keep people safe, happy, living, intelligent, and healthy is indeed the basis of Good. Good beings in D&D (considering its functional and formative relation to wargaming) are often embroiled in battle, but interior to game reasoning is that without the defense of militarily powerful good beings, no end of suffering might be caused by evil beings. Eternal good beings of vast intelligence love for eternal reasons, due to situation of position, substance, experience, as well as in function.

 

My typical outlook on Evil in D&D is that it extends from hate. The viewpoint that hate is more important than love can extend from a situation where safety is seen as never complete, never entire, and always vulnerable, with the extent of the situation being eternal, unsalvable situation in torment. To some degree, destruction might be chosen to call attention to a problem, or to necessitate negation of eternal suffering, but these gestures are often thwarted. One common solution is to serve that which hates, so as to reduce vulnerability or at the very least reduce ones unavoidable punishment. Evil beings needn't cause immediate harm, nor in many cases do evil beings wish harm at all, but they see it as inevitable and often the sooner acted on, the better to defend ones own needs. Of course, eternal evil beings of vast intelligence hate for eternal reasons, due to situation of position, substance, experience, as well as in function.

 

Neutrality must be understood as neither insensate apathy nor cowardly selfishness per se, but these are possible among some neutrals or any neutral given appropriate circumstance; rather, entirely sensitive and inclusive feelings of inherant sentitiousness and inviolable essence in division from answering to inquiry and demand alike. It is not that Law is seen as a demand nor that Chaos is seen as potentially schismatic to identity, but rather that Law is seen as potentially schismatic from personality and Chaos is seen as demanding a structure where specific and observable need cannot be filled with an absolute variance. It is not that Good is seen as impotently reactive and inherantly masturbatory, nor is it that Evil is seen as implausible a defense due to violative antagonism that begs antagonism in reply, but rather that Good is overbearing and meddlesome and Evil is seen as extrenuating the imprisonment of pleasure against any expressed and real want and begging alliance for the distressed sadomasochistic relationships it forces. Of course, the reversal of these are true too, in the negating form.

 

D&D allows for villains to be likeable, but there is never any question that they are villains. It's rare in the extreme that the heroes have any major flaws, anything that could truly alienate the player from identifying them as the good guys. Could Bob Salvatore's Wulfgar still be a hero if he were an unrelenting misogynist? How about a racist?

 

You're thinking about the D&D computer games, such as the versions of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale I think you were involved with. D&D allows for villains to be likable, and individual creation within the vast situations presented by D&D allows for villains to be just about anything as long as they're in the antagonist or opposing situation to protagonal and virtue-seeking players. One situation I remember appearing in film and television of the seventies were villains that were more than likable -- they were in dire need of rescue from their cyclic situations that have no element of self-imposition at all. Another approach would be villains who are unavoidably set on a path which crosses those of heroes, only villains due to a conflict of interest.

 

On a higher level, there is also rarely any question about whether the actions of the heroes are worse than those of the villains. Even in games like Fallout, where the player has the ability to play a truly despicable character, there's very little the character could do that compares to the Master's plan for wiping out the human race.

 

Of course, this is resulting from the issue of the designers working from a certain thematic unity, the theme of reflexive equation between selfhood and undeniable right of action. While reward for simple virtue and punishment of realistically probable wrongdoing did exist here and there, the primary attraction of many to the game was a permitted variety of behavior with recognisable (if not always believable) outcomes.

 

In the absence of such grand visions of destructions, many RPG settings provide the comfortable framework of higher morality at work. Elements of the story reinforce that there is a clockwork mechanism that underlines the good and bad deeds of the universe and reacts to them in an established way. Even a setting as thought-provoking as Planescape relies on this; it's fundamental to the setting's concept. Good and evil aren't ideas in the heads of characters, they are codified realities defined and regulated by higher powers. "Remove all doubt, gentle readers, gears are turning."

 

I doubt that this is the message of Fallout. Rather, both Fallout computer games seemed very much computer games with standards that were recognisable, at times entertaining, and themes that fit into fandom influenced science fiction based on existing motifs and media before the last decade of the twentieth century (prior to 1990). Odd that no motifs and media post-1989 were part of that game.

 

Wasn't there a set of computer games about post-apocalyptic situations that were designed almost to completion then cancelled due to final disinterest of any computer game publisher?

 

alternates make it more difficult for audiences to identify the color of the hats each character wears in the scenario.

 

Redundant.

 

Where's the big soft boobies of ladies?

 

Brecht wanted viewers to be aware that they were witnessing a theatrical production and to think of its contents intellectually instead of emotionally.

 

I've been told time and time again, over and over again, the importance of semi-immersive emotional art to distract people from certain situations they could endanger and be endangered by without effectively assisting themselves or others.

 

Then again, it's sometimes (sometimes not) best to approach this issue without what seems to be brain damage and what seem to function as pain killers. Where do I find these things? Where are the big soft boobies of ladies?

 

Ten years ago, a game might have cost a million dollars to make. Today, multiply that figure by ten.

 

Ten years ago? In 1996, a game might have cost about a thousand dollars for initial computer purchase and at that time there were still a few game designers who worked second jobs to support their game design. Ever take a look at Dungeon Keeper 2? Definitely around a thousand five hundred dollars of specific business expense to make that game, although advertising might have run a couple hundred in computer gaming magazines back then.

 

In 2006, the games I see still don't seem as if they'd cost more than three thousand dollars of business-specific costs to make. Further, the gameplay quality and even graphics don't bespeak incredible cost. I've been told about this before (you know, I was raised by computer programmers) and stupid games usually are made by some dork wanting an easy buck. Usually, the most innovative and interesting games are made by a hardworking enthusiast who wants to share ideas. Usually the most charming games are made as an experiment while educating oneself in computer programming. Professional computer game entertainment designers are a new profession, comparitively.

 

The potential for audience alienation is too high for major development houses to attempt risky plots, risky characters, and risky presentations of narrative. What publisher is going to fund the Neil LaButes, Todd Solondzs, or Darren Aronofskys of video games with a twenty million dollar price tag?

 

Tell it to Barnum and Hubbard. The prices of books, sports tickets, movie tickets, and just about all entertainment, food, and clothing are rising too.

 

I've been told that it's all a health concern.

 

Computer games don't cost that much to make but do take time and effort. The fifty dollar fee is probably approximate to the shipping cost. After all, we orbit the lunar cities in a massive space city. Without the fifty dollar cost, however, we might be seeing games leak out more slowly, as in, a relaxed but focused mutual effort by dozens of dual-job people to produce a game every year.

 

Someone who is comfortable watching characters of sketchy moral background may not be comfortable directing the actions of such a person.

 

The same issue appears to be approached by role-playing games, past and present. You know what sells the best? Well, whatever is new and interesting, involving and available. Most roleplaying game supplements sell on the basis of new game expansions containing interesting new information, new design possibilities within the context of the new information, stuff that can be added to the existing campaign.

 

Computer role-playing games have yet to incorporate the sale of a body of supplemental gaming material. With Neverwinter Nights 2, you might try releasing typical expansions (depending on quality and quantity of employee staff and money): typical NWN expansions of tiles, creatures, classes, items, and also you might try releasing thematic expansions, such as modern age, science fiction, old west, etc. Real Chaosium-like, dig?

 

I am very apprehensive to be writing these things, things that have been written before. I want to keep my soul.

 

Hopefully that focus will move toward telling different types of stories and involving the player

Edited February 14, 2006 by saintfrancisnudecenterfold

[Gabrielle]

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Nick_i_am]

Wasn't there a famous WW2 quote from like Patton or something about how Courage is not the absence of fear, it's feeling the fear and doing it anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was John Wayne, Pattern said that the idea of war isn't to die for your countary, but to make the other bastard die for his.

[metadigital]

n D&D, Law is often the outlook that organization and unity of purpose often result in a strong and orthodox result that cannot be shifted from preferred situation quite so easily as Chaotic resolutions.  Law seems firmer to the Lawful, more absolute and everpresent, as the primary effort of the Lawful is to make Law everpresent.  That v[ar]iance occurs among Lawful beings is only indication of the need for space and distance, an agreed upon convention that occurs whenever other conventions cannot be utilised.  More often than not, Lawful beings do arrange tranquil contracts and assist each other in systemization of the grand order, an order that might be considered to transcend individual interest and anything but perfect omniscience.  However, medians, intermediaries, and partitions must exist as boundaries and these give every opportunity as well as extensive motivation for mutual respect to occur.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would be pleased to hear your thoughts in elucidating this further.

Chaos in D&D is usually the decision to remain somewhat free of structure in the realization that whim and randomization, liberty and individual outlook offer much more exemption from unwanted situations than a declaration, unshifting hierarchy, and identification with universal order.  Hence, a more fluid approach would be a self-determination and a freedom that follow suit with ones own nature, and finding niches in a wilderness of choice as such options are understood to exist without cessation (but not always locally apparent and individually perc[ei]ved).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your writing (here, in any case) is very dense. You might like to add some examples to illuminate your points, even to make counter-points. For example, do you see any situations where Chaotic characters (specifically of polar alignments: Good and Evil) might work together to reduce the order (Lawfulness) of the universe?

My typical outlook on Evil in D&D is that it extends from hate.  The viewpoint that hate is more important than love can extend from a situation where safety is seen as never complete, never entire, and always vulnerable, with the extent of the situation being eternal, unsalvable situation in torment.  To some degree, destruction might be chosen to call attention to a problem, or to necessitate negation of eternal suffering, but these gestures are often thwarted.  One common solution is to serve that which hates, so as to reduce vulnerability or at the very least reduce ones unavoidable punishment.  Evil beings needn't cause immediate harm, nor in many cases do evil beings wish harm at all, but they see it as inevitable and often the sooner acted on, the better to defend ones own needs.  Of course, eternal evil beings of vast intelligence hate for eternal reasons, due to situation of position, substance, experience, as well as in function.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what you mean by "hate for eternal reasons".

Neutrality must be understood as neither insensate apathy nor cowardly selfishness per se, but these are possible among some neutrals or any neutral given appropriate circumstance; rather, entirely sensitive and inclusive feelings of inherant sentitiousness and inviolable essence in division from answering to inquiry and demand alike.  It is not that Law is seen as a demand nor that Chaos is seen as potentially schismatic to identity, but rather that Law is seen as potentially schismatic from personality and Chaos is seen as demanding a structure where specific and observable need cannot be filled with an absolute variance. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's good: I like that definition.

It is not that Good is seen as impotently reactive and inherantly masturbatory, nor is it that Evil is seen as implausible a defense due to violative antagonism that begs antagonism in reply, but rather that Good is overbearing and meddlesome and Evil is seen as extrenuating the imprisonment of pleasure against any expressed and real want and begging alliance for the distressed sadomasochistic relationships it forces.  Of course, the reversal of these are true too, in the negating form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Good is overbearing and meddlesome", I take it this is because good behooves us to oppose evil at every instance, and that can take individuals out of their comfort zone?

On a higher level, there is also rarely any question about whether the actions of the heroes are worse than those of the villains.  Even in games like Fallout, where the player has the ability to play a truly despicable character, there's very little the character could do that compares to the Master's plan for wiping out the human race.

Of course, this is resulting from the issue of the designers working from a certain thematic unity, the theme of reflexive equation between selfhood and undeniable right of action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this reflexive equation what you quoted above?

Hopefully that focus will move toward telling different types of stories and involving the player

[metadigital]

Wasn't there a famous WW2 quote from like Patton or something about how Courage is not the absence of fear, it's feeling the fear and doing it anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was John Wayne, Pattern said that the idea of war isn't to die for your countary, but to make the other poor bastard die for his.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Patton was a warrior poet and did not denigrate his enemy; in fact his greatest strength was the respect that he showed ("I read your book, Rommel!").

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Mr. Sawyer, I'm afraid that you really, really are showing evidence of having never read the longer alignment descriptions in the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide.

Oh, I've read them many times. But what's written in the books and what's used with actual characters and settings, especially today, is quite different. You're right, different writers do approach these definitions differently, but in the Forgotten Realms of 2006, it's pretty shallow. Sorry to reduce my reply to the foundation of what you wrote, but I think we both recognize that the reality of how alignment is used in D&D today is typically far from what was written in the 1st Ed. DMG.

 

Similarly, the way White Wolf wrote up the tendencies of the clans in Vampire, you'd think that there's a lot of room for exploration in the characters across all different clans. But that's not the way most people play them. They get flattened to the most obnoxious absurdities of the archetypes.

 

You're thinking about the D&D computer games, such as the versions of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale I think you were involved with.

No, I'm also thinking of the D&D settings, especially the Forgotten Realms.

 

Of course, this is resulting from the issue of the designers working from a certain thematic unity, the theme of reflexive equation between selfhood and undeniable right of action.  While reward for simple virtue and punishment of realistically probable wrongdoing did exist here and there, the primary attraction of many to the game was a permitted variety of behavior with recognisable (if not always believable) outcomes.

This doesn't change the fact that the Master was going to wipe out the entire human race, which I think most people would consider worse than the Vault Dweller wiping out every citizen of the Den.

 

I doubt that this is the message of Fallout.

I wasn't trying to say it was. Fallout is the example with the grand vision of destruction. You don't need much of a moral compass to understand the threat that the Master/the Enclave pose in Fallout and Fallout 2.

 

Professional computer game entertainment designers are a new profession, comparitively.

Compared to what?

 

Tell it to Barnum and Hubbard.  The prices of books, sports tickets, movie tickets, and just about all entertainment, food, and clothing are rising too.

The cost of individual games isn't rising much. The cost of development is what is rising.

 

The same issue appears to be approached by role-playing games, past and present.  You know what sells the best?  Well, whatever is new and interesting, involving and available.

A lot of sports games get by with almost no innovation at all and each iteration is barely more interesting than the one before.

 

Well, you certainly have permission to vary computer game stories, characters, and narrative presentation styles.

Not on a publisher's dime. One of the reasons I'm not too keen to write stories for published games is because it's being done to someone else's standards. I'll be more than happy to write NWN2 modules once the game's released.

[Llyranor]

I'll be more than happy to write NWN2 modules once the game's released.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, we'll hold you to that

[Azarkon]

In 2006, the games I see still don't seem as if they'd cost more than three thousand dollars of business-specific costs to make. Further, the gameplay quality and even graphics don't bespeak incredible cost. I've been told about this before (you know, I was raised by computer programmers) and stupid games usually are made by some dork wanting an easy buck. Usually, the most innovative and interesting games are made by a hardworking enthusiast who wants to share ideas. Usually the most charming games are made as an experiment while educating oneself in computer programming. Professional computer game entertainment designers are a new profession, comparitively.

 

The cohesion and productivity of most enthusiast-comprised development groups are, at best, lacking. This tendency is unsurprising: enthusiasm is seldom sustained in the face of adversity unless backed by cold, hard cash. Sure, you'll find a few who care enough to give it all for love of the craft, but their work is becoming increasingly marginalized in a market where success is synonymous with polish and quality. I don't mean to trash indies, but games do require a huge amount of grunt work and depending on a covenant of idea-men for sustained effort is often a recipe for ruin. Hence the rarity of success among indie games of professional ambition, especially those not mods of existing games.

 

But even mods, at least ambitious mods, are beyond the capabilities of most enthusiasts. As far as I know, the "cost" of modern games rise largely from graphical assets: the number of artists required to churn out the necessary content, and quality assurance: the heel of software development. An indy game might get away with subpar 2D graphics, but does so largely to the chagrin of enthusiasts, whose visions of grandeur cannot be satisfied by a game far behind the times. A mod using a professional engine suffers from the lack of artists (obviously) unless its goals are principally revisionary. Consequently, that's what successful mods typically are: they mod the rules a tad, add a few new models, and try to make the most of existing assets.

 

Since we're talking about RPGs here, the problem worsens. RPGs, unlike FPSs and strategy games, are primarily games of content. Their quality is often analogized to cinematic quality, which implies the unity of graphical, musical, textual, and game-mechanical assets. Consequently, revisionary modding works a hell of alot less well in RPGs. There's a value-analytic reason why the vast majority of FPS and RTS mods refuse to include a single-player campaign, but what is a RPG if not a single-player campaign? You certainly can't add a half dozen monsters to a RPG, change around the combat rules, and call yourself a dedicated enthusiast. You've got to create an entirely new game: complete with its own story, characters, and dynamics. When people dream of making RPGs, this is what they dream.

 

Toolsets like NWN ease the pain of indie development at the expense of quality. For fans, this is an acceptable trade-off, but let me ask you this: when was the last time a enthusiast-made module made you shiver in ecstasy the same way a professional effort did? I've seen plenty of modules that were obviously made by designers of caliber, but all of them have the same flaw: they are built ontop of a generic engine, and lacking the unique polish of a concentrated, unified effort, can never hope to catapult themselves beyond the walls of mere excellence.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Azarkon

[J.E. Sawyer]

By the way, I suppose I should cover all of my statements in this thread with this general idea: I would like a fair amount of people to play the games I make. If I were only interested in pleasing my own sensibilities, I probably wouldn't try to make CRPGs. I'd write stories or make pen and paper games for myself and my three closest friends.

[metadigital]

I'll be more than happy to write NWN2 modules once the game's released.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... And there was much rejoicing! (w00t)

 

(Would you do the Richard Bachman thing ...?)

Mr. Sawyer, I'm afraid that you really, really are showing evidence of having never read the longer alignment descriptions in the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide.

Oh, I've read them many times. But what's written in the books and what's used with actual characters and settings, especially today, is quite different. You're right, different writers do approach these definitions differently, but in the Forgotten Realms of 2006, it's pretty shallow. Sorry to reduce my reply to the foundation of what you wrote, but I think we both recognize that the reality of how alignment is used in D&D today is typically far from what was written in the 1st Ed. DMG.

 

Similarly, the way White Wolf wrote up the tendencies of the clans in Vampire, you'd think that there's a lot of room for exploration in the characters across all different clans. But that's not the way most people play them. They get flattened to the most obnoxious absurdities of the archetypes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would be pleased to see a game where there are more than the primary denominations of alignment available to play. For example, the dialogue options of KotOR usually had a virtuous response, a non-commital response and a chaotic-stupid response. It would be good to see more variation (maybe dynamic responses based on character development?) like the ability to pretend to be working with a party before dropping them in it at the most propitious time ... (rather than just "[LIE] The cheque is in the mail.")

[Nick_i_am]

Wasn't there a famous WW2 quote from like Patton or something about how Courage is not the absence of fear, it's feeling the fear and doing it anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was John Wayne, Pattern said that the idea of war isn't to die for your countary, but to make the other poor bastard die for his.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Patton was a warrior poet and did not denigrate his enemy; in fact his greatest strength was the respect that he showed ("I read your book, Rommel!").

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ah, thanks for the fix. You're right, it makes a differance.

 

But yes, he also seemed to be a bit...'eccentric' effective, but eccentric. Then again, most of my 'knowledge' comes from the film.

[metadigital]

Toolsets like NWN ease the pain of indie development at the expense of quality.  For fans, this is an acceptable trade-off, but let me ask you this: when was the last time a enthusiast-made module made you shiver in ecstasy the same way a professional effort did? I've seen plenty of modules that were obviously made by designers of caliber, but all of them have the same flaw: they are built ontop of a generic engine, and lacking the unique polish of a concentrated, unified effort, can never hope to catapult themselves beyond the walls of mere excellence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I found many of the NwN community mods far superior to the official campaign. Bearing this is mind, I am much more upbeat (unusually for me: perhaps my desires are clouding my usually-realistic-worldview? ") about the future of gaming in general and RPGs in particular.

 

I see NwN as the provision of the computer-equivalent to the AD&D library and a pad and bunch of pencils: it's a winning decentralised strategy for maximising creative output. Which is why I feel so sanguine on the subject.

Wasn't there a famous WW2 quote from like Patton or something about how Courage is not the absence of fear, it's feeling the fear and doing it anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was John Wayne, Pattern said that the idea of war isn't to die for your countary, but to make the other poor bastard die for his.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Patton was a warrior poet and did not denigrate his enemy; in fact his greatest strength was the respect that he showed ("I read your book, Rommel!").

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, thanks for the fix. You're right, it makes a differance.

 

But yes, he also seemed to be a bit...'eccentric' effective, but eccentric. Then again, most of my 'knowledge' comes from the film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And a great Oscar Winner it is. On my bookshelf, too.

 

 

Tangential aside: The reason I know about the "I read your book, Rommel!" line is because I was watching a director of a recent Oscars (do do doo doo do do doo doo: two mentions in the one post! We've just entered The Twilight Zone) who quoted it as part of his preparation ...

[Azarkon]

Actually, I found many of the NwN community mods far superior to the official campaign. Bearing this is mind, I am much more upbeat (unusually for me: perhaps my desires are clouding my usually-realistic-worldview? whistling.gif) about the future of gaming in general and RPGs in particular.

 

Oh, I'm not contending that. But understand that the NWN OC was hardly representative of a concentrated, unified effort at making a good RPG. It was meant to showcase the toolset, if I'm not mistaken, and suffered as a result from being made by the same generic framework - a fact the devs admitted to later.

 

Compare the community mods or the NWN OC to a concentrated professional effort like BG/BG2 and you can easily tell the difference.

[metadigital]

Not sure if your conclusion is sound, though.

 

Given NwN2 is a good "concentrated professional effort like BG/BG2", AND the Toolset is as good as I hope it will be, MY conclusion is that the RPG genre is in the pink of health.

 

Even given a re-run of NwN OC in NwN2, if the toolset is good then it doesn't matter.

 

In other words I think the critical point is the toolset. (The campaign will help establish the toolset as a viable platform for people to replace NwN for RPGs.)

[Cantousent]

I'll be more than happy to write NWN2 modules once the game's released.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless you intend to make your modules under a pen name, I hope that you indulge us here at the message boards and let us know when you complete a module. For one, I would like to see it. I intend to buy NWN2, come what may. I might bitch later, but I'm still buying it. From what I can tell, it looks like Obsidz is putting care into the aspects that most interest me. So I am keenly curious to see how you will use the toolset for a private project.

 

Yes, you will undoubtedly open yourself to criticism. *shrug* folks criticize each other all the time on the net. A fact with which you are familiar, I am sure. :Eldar's tongue in cheek icon:

 

With the critics, some of whom will have good points and constructive criticism, there will also be folks predisposed to praise your work. Some of them will also bring good points and positive feedback. I