Best way to start an "Adventure"

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

What is the advantage of allowing the player to define their own character if they aren't really provided any meaningful ways to enact their definition of that character within the game's narrative?  By that definition, by not providing any first person narrative, DOOM gave you a lot of freedom to "role-play".  The fact is, that within the context of the game's narrative, PS:T gave the player more freedom to express his/her definition of who this incarnation of TNO was than, say, BG did to really describe the personality of the Bhallspawn.

Because roleplaying is a game that is based for the most part in the imagination. By allowing people to tap into a part of that that they find appealing it makes them happy. How and what meaning they find will depend entirely on the individual.

In BG and even more so in IWD the player finds their own meaning rather than being spoonfed it along some pre defined path.

 

With the context of the games narative PST gave the player more freedom to express his her definition of TNO , or basically. The game gave you various choices to express an already pre generated path programmed into the game.

 

But the important thing here is that as you said you are expressing definitions of TNO and TNO is an individual.

Where as in BG you are expressing your definition of a child of Bhaal of your own creation. Using the game as a guideline to play within.

 

As long as it isnt contradicted directly by the games narrative then there is nothing stopping you doing it. The difference here is it's not done for you.

 

The general point of the thread was to discover if it was at all possible to create a PST type game without having to always use an amnesiac pre gen as the central character.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Not really. BG didn't force upon my character a history or past or background other than growing up in Candlekeep. Like I said you fill in the blanks in BG.

 

In BG and even more so in IWD the player finds their own meaning rather than being spoonfed it along some pre defined path.

 

But you have to concede that "finding my way" is a linear affair, of which you cannot handle as you wish for the larger part of the game. That i can create my character is established, but "finding my way" isnt something worth bragging about if it entails a tight leash. It feels mostly, in the games we've been talking of (possible exception being Fallout and Morrowind in one or two events), of finding out our way trough a maze with one single path to it.

 

Even if you ignore for a minute the fact that PS:T has a predetermined character, and BG doesn't (in the same sense of PS:T of course, as its forcing you to a role regardless), and just focus on the rest of the game, expressing the Bhaalspawn that you are comes off as something empty. The very fact that i can create my own Bhaalspawn should have been taken into consideration, and instead I can only "define" myself in matters of choosing the good or evil path in the game's quests (and evil is barely present). Even in story-driven terms, TNO is given better expression.

 

Should the fact that you can use imagination to roleplay a character be used in a medium which doesn't care about your imagination? And should the game's inneficciency in allowing for better ways of expressing your character be excused because i can use imagination? Fallout proves to be very good in RP as it represents many character nuances according to your decisions. You can't imagine on the same scale as a PnP game, but there are many things you can do in it, and your character will change and evolve based on it. Not so much an opportunity for that in BG2, despite that I can use imagination on both.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But you have to concede that "finding my way" is a linear affair, of which you cannot handle as you wish for the larger part of the game. That i can create my character is established, but "finding my way" isnt something worth bragging about if it entails a tight leash. It feels mostly, in the games we've been talking of (possible exception being Fallout and Morrowind in one or two events), of finding out our way trough a maze with one single path to it.

 

Even if you ignore for a minute the fact that PS:T has a predetermined character, and BG doesn't (in the same sense of PS:T of course, as its forcing you to a role regardless), and just focus on the rest of the game, expressing the Bhaalspawn that you are comes off as something empty. The very fact that i can create my own Bhaalspawn should have been taken into consideration, and instead I can only "define" myself in matters of choosing the good or evil path in the game's quests (and evil is barely present). Even in story-driven terms, TNO is given better expression.

 

Should the fact that you can use imagination to roleplay a character be used in a medium which doesn't care about your imagination? And should the game's inneficciency in allowing for better ways of expressing your character be excused because i can use imagination? Fallout proves to be very good in RP as it represents many character nuances according to your decisions. You can't imagine on the same scale as a PnP game, but there are many things you can do in it, and your character will change and evolve based on it. Not so much an opportunity for that in BG2, despite that I can use imagination on both.

Once I play the game I really dont think like that. I might later when I analyse the game.But at the time I approach everything as if it were the character encountering it.

 

As long as it makes sense then I dont feel restricted.

 

For example in IWD. It took place in an area where exploration without a goal isnt the smartest idea anyway.

The new areas open up logically and while the areas overall do follow a linear progression they are pretty large and non linear withing themselves. IE once you arrive in the main area where you go and what you do once there is really entirely upto you. Also because of the linear progression the combat was also pretty well balanced for the parties levels in each area. You can talk in all most all of the major encounters. That the NPC dosnt listen to you and fights you anyway is fine. They are individuals just like you. You cant force someone to negotiate if they have no desire to do so. In some cases you can settle things peacefully too but the NPC generally gets something out of the deal.

 

I've only completely finished BG II twice. But I've played chapter II many times (chapter II being the one where you can explore everything inside and outside of the city).Just another example of making up your own game within a game a structure that is provided I suppose.

 

Morrowind is very much the opposite. If you follow the main path of the game then you miss out on the point of Morrowind which is having the freedom to go anywhere and do anything (even if it is in somewhat generic way).

However if you do go off and do your own thing. Exploring Daedric ruins was my particular interest. Then when you get back to the story line its no longer even the remotest challenge. Come to think of it. I couldnt even tell you what the story line was. Thats how non memorable it turned out.

 

It depends on how you define the game really. For me the game isnt just about what dialogue choices you are given its about the whole experience. How the character chooses to fight, what tactics they choose to employ. How they choose to interact with the world, which quests to ignore and which one to take.

In cases where you have no choice how that makes them feel towards those who put them in that posistion and so forth.

 

Now this is a very interesting point actually one I have often pondered myself.

And I've basically reached this conclusion. If you are the sort of person who can imagine your way around a game, then less is definately more. If you look at the effort people have put in to their IWD parties over at the IWD forum it shows a lot of creativity.

Games like PST would rob them of that creativity. I found no use for my imagination in PST it was all pre done I just had to trigger it by clicking the next option. I'd get nothing more out of PST than I would from reading a book which was based around someones single playthrough of the game.

If however you dont have the imagination or the inclination to do that , then IWD may well feel empty and devoid of roleplaying options.

 

By far the most popular seems to be the middle ground of BG. Your character is yours but the game takes on some greater depth by having NPCs which are both detailed and have quests attached to them(making them part of the world). So you dont quite have the creative freedom of IWD , since you must accept some sort of restriction. Like being a child of Bhaal. But on the other hand you are not shoehorned into the role of a specific individual either.

 

Not really sure why the FO model isnt copied more. The only thing I can think of is that it dosnt match what is the classical D&D approach. Although in PnP the game very much adapts to the desires of the players playing it. If you design something based on it, then its either likely to resemble the type of D&D you play. Or be designed to attract the largest market possible by having a little bit of everything.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You can talk in all most all of the major encounters. That the NPC dosnt listen to you and fights you anyway is fine. They are individuals just like you. You cant force someone to negotiate if they have no desire to do so. In some cases you can settle things peacefully too but the NPC generally gets something out of the deal.

 

I think that there doesn't need to be a constant negotiation with individuals. Many people believe that Frank Horrigan was basic as we couldn't talk him out of it, but in retrospect, like me, he also had a job. My point however, is that, if there isn't a chance to dialogue, why include the option? Or why bother with about 20 different lines of dialogue if its going to amount to combat? I always disliked that in BG, it made the situation feel fake.

 

If however you dont have the imagination or the inclination to do that , then IWD may well feel empty and devoid of roleplaying options.

 

I tend to use some degree of imagination occasionaly, but it depends on the game. To me IWD gave me good options for character creation, as did Wizardry 8; however, imagining backgrounds was fairly useless, and roleplaying, expressing my characters, was mostly fruitless. Thats not to say I can't create pasts, stories, or backgrounds. I can. They just don't matter. Its like creating characters' pasts for a story, but then have them automatically put the past behind, and have most of their future assumed for them. By contrast Fallout was the opposite, and BG had the right idea of character creation but then had very limited expression.

 

The whole experience i got out of BG2 was mostly the good aspect of char creation, but looking disapointed as I just followed things that forced me to make choices, or making choices for me. I highly disliked that the devs assumed I *had* to care for Imoen, or for Irenicus' torture. I highly disliked that being evil was almost the same as being good, only with "Me Gnaarl, me kill!" dialogue choices. Being Chaotic Evil would imply I shouldn't care for some things, like helping Elhan. And that I spent about a month improving my character to end up being captured anyway... was very bad. I didn't felt amused by that one, not one bit.

 

This isn't to say that i tolerate similar things in PS:T and don't in BG2, thats not the reason. Its just that choices are just taken away, or not given, despite its not as strict a game as PS:T was. And I admit I may have been spoiled with FO. Who doesn't?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I think that there doesn't need to be a constant negotiation with individuals. Many people believe that Frank Horrigan was basic as we couldn't talk him out of it, but in retrospect, like me, he also had a job. My point however, is that, if there isn't a chance to dialogue, why include the option? Or why bother with about 20 different lines of dialogue if its going to amount to combat? I always disliked that in BG, it made the situation feel fake.

 

I tend to use some degree of imagination occasionaly, but it depends on the game. To me IWD gave me good options for character creation, as did Wizardry 8; however, imagining backgrounds was fairly useless, and roleplaying, expressing my characters, was mostly fruitless. Thats not to say I can't create pasts, stories, or backgrounds. I can. They just don't matter. Its like creating characters' pasts for a story, but then have them automatically put the past behind, and have most of their future assumed for them. By contrast Fallout was the opposite, and BG had the right idea of character creation but then had very limited expression.

 

The whole experience i got out of BG2 was mostly the good aspect of char creation, but looking disapointed as I just followed things that forced me to make choices, or making choices for me. I highly disliked that the devs assumed I *had* to care for Imoen, or for Irenicus' torture. I highly disliked that being evil was almost the same as being good, only with "Me Gnaarl, me kill!" dialogue choices. Being Chaotic Evil would imply I shouldn't care for some things, like helping Elhan. And that I spent about a month improving my character to end up being captured anyway... was very bad. I didn't felt amused by that one, not one bit.

 

This isn't to say that i tolerate similar things in PS:T and don't in BG2, thats not the reason. Its just that choices are just taken away, or not given, despite its not as strict a game as PS:T was. And I admit I may have been spoiled with FO. Who doesn't?

Just because you cant do something I dont think you should ignore the option of some dialogue before the fight. If nothing else it gives you an insight into the NPC's motivations.

The dialogue is there for the character. Some characters will try to talk their way out and only fight as a last resort others will just ignore the dialogue and fight right away.

I'm not sure about feeling fake. I mean I know subsequently that there is going to be a fight but the character still has to play his role.

 

It really depends on the backgrounds. The ones you create once you have played the game are invariably better than the ones you create blind. Because much like the designer you can then personalise the game to the character and give them added motivation. Only in this case being personal it has no impact on anyone elses game unlike a game where you would have to have a set character to accomplist the same thing. Your the one who has to do the work and your the only one who will ever experience the results of it.

 

Evil and good is a tough one. Evil people can do good things but for an evil reason. IE if you help someone out because it will further your own ends thats not really a good thing. It's not evil on the scale of things like murder and rape but its still not nice.

So I tend not to think about what the character is doing so much as why they are doing it. That way you can take what is a potentially good act and twist it to your own ends. Like retrieve an item for someone get the experience and the reward and then pop back later that night and kill them in their sleep and/or steal it for yourself.

 

The problem is that a computer is really awful at judging motivations unless you use the <lie> tag or something equally obvious in the dialogue. This is another one of those fill in the blanks but it makes playing evil characters far more entertaining.

 

In both BG and KOTOR the designers were lucky enough to read my character. Since I had used the same character from BG I was very attached to Imoen.Seeing what happened to her was quite a shock. I felt quite gleeful when I turned into the slayer and tore Irenicus appart at the end.

 

Likewise in KOTOR I would have rescued Bastila no matter what. Even if it wasnt part of the plot. Had Malek actually killed her rather than turn her I would have squeezed the life out of him and probably ended up on the darkside anyway.

 

So even though those were very big restrictions at the time I never felt them and they actually added greatly to both characters motivations.

In BG I flew through chapter II the first time as soon as I had the 20k gold I was off. Missed out on most of the side quests and the lower level made spellhold and the following areas much harder.

 

I try not to bring preconceptions from one game to another (unless they are related). So I never expected a D&D game to be like a FO game because in FO its very much about people rather than an epic quest of self discovery and coming to terms with your heritage.

 

Generally with story games it would depend entirely on the character whether I played them or not. How good they were or how deep they were wouldnt even be a consideration if I didnt want to find out about the protagonist anyway. And I think thats always going to be an issue with games like PST and FF where your character is fixed for you before you begin.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Just because you cant do something I dont think you should ignore the option of some dialogue before the fight. If nothing else it gives you an insight into the NPC's motivations.

 

When they talk, that is. Remember how you're given usually 3 lines of dialogue to try and determine the nature of the killers hired to kill you in BG1? That's 3 lines (or 4), *all* leading to the same. And you know its funny? What you ask them is irrelevant, as they have a convenient note explaining their motivation. Remember how, despite how many lines you get in BG2, Irenicus himself states that you'll get "no villain's exposition" out of him? And how you can read his freakin' diary? Thats basically it. Its fine to give lines to players to which they can express the character, but more than 2 lines for an event which you cannot handle differently? I believe this tends to just bog down the game. Choices should usually be more meaningful, or more taken into account; or the amount should be reduced, if they do not give anything to the player. In the case of the hired killers, one line would suffice, for instance.

 

The dialogue is there for the character. Some characters will try to talk their way out and only fight as a last resort others will just ignore the dialogue and fight right away.

 

What if my character has abilities which aren't taken into account? Yes like you said, some are there for the character; but what if the character has the means to persuade someone, but there isn't an option? Well, we can blame the NPC, stating his personality doesn't allow to bribe/convince him/etc.. But with 18+ on Charisma, a female PC, 237,580 gold pieces, and enough trinkets to make the finest shop in Athkatla blush when looking at their stock, it ends up being weird how you can't bribe on more than one ocasion o_O Would your character be more of a character if he could say five things instead of two, if those two conveyed feelings for the character? And why are you given the option of bribery on some occasions but not others? What led the devs to think, say, that you can ask Bodhi if you can do something to appease her (Spellhold) and not being able to tell the 4 NPCs that invade Garren Windspear's home you'd pay them to avoid confrontation? Its not strict to BG2, though, but its annoying as far as giving several ways of expression.

 

In both BG and KOTOR the designers were lucky enough to read my character. Since I had used the same character from BG I was very attached to Imoen.Seeing what happened to her was quite a shock. I felt quite gleeful when I turned into the slayer and tore Irenicus appart at the end.

 

Unfortunately for me I had left Imoen's chunks bleeding on the side of the road near the Friendly Arm Inn. But much to my surprise her chunks rejoined and opened my caged door in BG2 <_< I'm all up for having the developers come up with ways to make me feel involved with NPCs, but that was quite the assumption they made there. The worse part was having everyone tell me the urgency in finding Imoen, when i could take as long as I wished; and she wasn't even important at all, as i could finish SoA and ToB without her. She wasn't even memorable for the remainder of the game after she rejoined my rank. Xan, Xzar and Shar-Teel were more memorable, yet, they were either dead or gone. At least Viconia was back, and they had the great insight of killing Khalid.

 

I try not to bring preconceptions from one game to another (unless they are related). So I never expected a D&D game to be like a FO game because in FO its very much about people rather than an epic quest of self discovery and coming to terms with your heritage.

 

Its not really about preconceptions about an entire game (i certainly don't expect a game to be like other games i've played; we'd be screwed if that happened), but rather, how certain elements are handled. No doubt D&D is usually centered on heroic enterprises, but that doesn't mean that they should 1) always be about heroism (PS:T wasn't about heroism, it was very individualistic in that matter), and 2) that my character is given large control but little outcome. No doubt the game succeeded despite my problems with it, but its undeniable that roleplaying in the game was very poor (at least as far as meaningful decisions and dialogue choices).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When they talk, that is. Remember how you're given usually 3 lines of dialogue to try and determine the nature of the killers hired to kill you in BG1? That's 3 lines (or 4), *all* leading to the same. And you know its funny? What you ask them is irrelevant, as they have a convenient note explaining their motivation. Remember how, despite how many lines you get in BG2, Irenicus himself states that you'll get "no villain's exposition" out of him? And how you can read his freakin' diary? Thats basically it. Its fine to give lines to players to which they can express the character, but more than 2 lines for an event which you cannot handle differently? I believe this tends to just bog down the game. Choices should usually be more meaningful, or more taken into account; or the amount should be reduced, if they do not give anything to the player. In the case of the hired killers, one line would suffice, for instance.

 

What if my character has abilities which aren't taken into account? Yes like you said, some are there for the character; but what if the character has the means to persuade someone, but there isn't an option? Well, we can blame the NPC, stating his personality doesn't allow to bribe/convince him/etc.. But with 18+ on Charisma, a female PC, 237,580 gold pieces, and enough trinkets to make the finest shop in Athkatla blush when looking at their stock, it ends up being weird how you can't bribe on more than one ocasion o_O Would your character be more of a character if he could say five things instead of two, if those two conveyed feelings for the character? And why are you given the option of bribery on some occasions but not others? What led the devs to think, say, that you can ask Bodhi if you can do something to appease her (Spellhold) and not being able to tell the 4 NPCs that invade Garren Windspear's home you'd pay them to avoid confrontation? Its not strict to BG2, though, but its annoying as far as giving several ways of expression.

 

Unfortunately for me I had left Imoen's chunks bleeding on the side of the road near the Friendly Arm Inn. But much to my surprise her chunks rejoined and opened my caged door in BG2 <_< I'm all up for having the developers come up with ways to make me feel involved with NPCs, but that was quite the assumption they made there. The worse part was having everyone tell me the urgency in finding Imoen, when i could take as long as I wished; and she wasn't even important at all, as i could finish SoA and ToB without her. She wasn't even memorable for the remainder of the game after she rejoined my rank. Xan, Xzar and Shar-Teel were more memorable, yet, they were either dead or gone. At least Viconia was back, and they had the great insight of killing Khalid.

 

I try not to bring preconceptions from one game to another (unless they are related). So I never expected a D&D game to be like a FO game because in FO its very much about people rather than an epic quest of self discovery and coming to terms with your heritage.

 

Its not really about preconceptions about an entire game (i certainly don't expect a game to be like other games i've played; we'd be screwed if that happened), but rather, how certain elements are handled. No doubt D&D is usually centered on heroic enterprises, but that doesn't mean that they should 1) always be about heroism (PS:T wasn't about heroism, it was very individualistic in that matter), and 2) that my character is given large control but little outcome. No doubt the game succeeded despite my problems with it, but its undeniable that roleplaying in the game was very poor (at least as far as meaningful decisions and dialogue choices).

Well you cant really have it both ways. I think overall it was done better in IWD (the combat too) but it does its job in advancing the story and placing those NPC characters in it.

If you take away the dialogue you then you will speed up things. But you will also reduce the NPC characters to things placed there simply to be killed.

Dont get me wrong I'm not saying that the dialogue and interactions cant be improved on. Everything can be imporved on hopefully or there is little point playing anything new. But they are fundamental to the game. What levels of dialogue you give to minor vs major characters is probably a question for developers.

 

Thats always going to be one of the things that is limited by scripting. On the other hand you have to remember that BG is 2e and is a ruleset without skills. With 3e , you can see it a little in IWD II more is made of the characters other abilities (in the case of 18 chr its bonus added to your social skills).

I dont see anything wrong with bribing NPC's that makes more sense to me than simply talking them around to your point of view because you happen to have XX level of speech.

 

Unless they are:

 

Very dedicated to their purpose.

Very rich

Or overwhelmingly more powerful than you in which case why take a little when you can have the lot.

 

What I like about bribery over speech is that bribery requires you to give something up. The money you spend on a bribe you may well miss later on and that makes bribing someone an important choice.

On the hand simply choosing the non combat speech option is cheap and obvious and costs you nothing. You dont even have to think about it if you have a speech oriented character.

 

The best use of speech would be to lower the level of bribe required.

 

I never liked that about Sequels.

 

Say what you like about consoles, but I think they have the right idea when it comes to episodes in many cases.

 

The Shining Force games actually took the data from your save in each episode. If someone was dead they stayed dead and your suffered the consequences of their death. FFX-2 never refers to Tidus by name to keep the integrity of the character name you may have chosen for him in FFX.

 

Forced motivation is never good. Like Gorian at the begining of BG yep hes dead and ? While my character may have known him for 16 years I'd known him for all of 5 minutes.

On the other hand if you kill off a character which the player has used and grown used to. Even if they dont miss them emotionally. They will miss them as they will need to account for their loss in every combat from then on.

Some players may well baulk at this. But its a roleplaying game your in a world you dont have the right to have that world bow to your whims. Just like in real life you have to find a way to deal with whatever the world tosses your way.

 

D&D is a bit different because although it is bound by a common rules system each world works in a different way. So an FR game is going to be high fantasy. A Planescape game is going to be high powered and weird. Ravenloft is going to be dark and gothic and so on. Each world has its own individual "feel" despite all of them being D&D.

Where as FO is very much an individual thing.

 

If people can be convinced that the rewards for allowing the designer to determine everything for you before you start the game are worth the trade off of not being able to create your own character then games might go in that direction.

Until someone has another crack at it, its not really going to be possible to tell. Which is probably why they would rather stick with something safer.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If you take away the dialogue you then you will speed up things. But you will also reduce the NPC characters to things placed there simply to be killed.

 

I'm not favouring removing dialogue, just suggesting a better analysis of the times where its not really necessary. This isn't just concerning distracting the player with dialogue lines that don't lead anywhere, its also about NPCs' logic. One other example would be Aran Linvail. I'm almost certain 90% of his dialogue lines lead always to the same answer. Thats counting despite what and how i tell him things. Do you suppose that talking to someone aggressivelly will prompt a serene answer from them? Troughtout a dialogue? I don't think so.

 

Thats always going to be one of the things that is limited by scripting. On the other hand you have to remember that BG is 2e and is a ruleset without skills. With 3e , you can see it a little in IWD II more is made of the characters other abilities (in the case of 18 chr its bonus added to your social skills).

 

I'm not so sure its just because of the ruleset. In a somewhat recent online convo with David Gaider at RPGCodex, people asked him about what they considered to be a problem with romances, where ugly, low reputation characters with low stats for their mental capacities could not only speak fluently, but could win over their lovers. Gaider stated something which involved Bioware opting for that route because players did not liked to be challenged, if i recall correctly. One thing is to be under pressure from time constrains and not paying much attention to stats, the other is deciding that the player shouldn't be put into a difficult position because he made a wrong choice It leads to a kind of automation and sedation in gameplay that isn't very healthy, methinks.

 

I dont see anything wrong with bribing NPC's that makes more sense to me than simply talking them around to your point of view because you happen to have XX level of speech.

 

I didn't said there was anything wrong with bribing, merely what possessed the devs to give players the chance to try and talk Bodhi (a high-level powerful Vampire) out of harming the group, but didn't think of giving that option when the party was confronted with a group that could possibly be bribed.

 

On the hand simply choosing the non combat speech option is cheap and obvious and costs you nothing. You dont even have to think about it if you have a speech oriented character.

 

This isn't always the case. You may need to mix and combine your Speech values with information about who you're talking to. IIRC. talking the Master out of his plans involved high Cha, high Speech, and having read Vree's Mutant autopsy reports. While its not like that all the time, its not always just relying on the stat itself.

 

The Shining Force games actually took the data from your save in each episode. If someone was dead they stayed dead and your suffered the consequences of their death.

 

I think this was true for the Saturn versions (which were divided into 3 chapters, although only one was translated and released in NA), am i correct? I played the Genesis versions and never spotted this.

 

On the other hand if you kill off a character which the player has used and grown used to. Even if they dont miss them emotionally. They will miss them as they will need to account for their loss in every combat from then on.

Some players may well baulk at this. But its a roleplaying game your in a world you dont have the right to have that world bow to your whims. Just like in real life you have to find a way to deal with whatever the world tosses your way.

 

Agreed, but thats precisely the problem. If we are to use recurring characters in the series, then you'll see how people flock over to Sarevok, or even Minsc. Imoen never really stood out in the first game. Bioware just took the liberty of expecting us to care for her because we were both orfans in Candlekeep, despite the player never experienced any kind of affinity for the character during that time. In fact, the only time where you may get some sympathy for the character is in BG2, after the torture.

 

However the character was highly underdevloped. I was much more happy with Sarevok's return then I was at the thought of having to hear "Hun, yer a queer fellow." again :ph34r:

[Darque]

*eyes start to hemorage from the sheer amount of text used in this dialogue between you two*

 

*returns you to your regularly schedualed program*

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, we could start talking like this.

 

Zantetsuken: Yes.

Shadow Paladin: No.

Zantetsuken: Yes.

Shadow Paladin: No.

Zantetsuken: Yes.

Shadow Paladin: No.

 

Until someone spoils the fun by posting "Maybe".

[Darque]

ahahahahahaha :D

[Azarkon]

Anybody up to writing a game, where you start out as a newly built android without a history ? Wouldn't be amnesia, as there wasn't anything to forget. Come on people, use a little imagination here.

 

Actually that would defeat the whole purpose of the Amnesiac storyline

 

The point of the amnesia is that eventually you *will* have to deal with your past. Look at how it was done in PS:T and KOTOR - your past does come back to haunt you. If it didn't, there'd be no point to use an amnesiac and certainly no advantage gained in the area of exploiting player background for plot line purposes.

 

BTW, what you suggested also does offer a degree of control on part of the devs because they'd know, for instance, that the player must be an android, must have been built recently, etc. An analogy in fantasy games (aside from switching android with golem ) would be saying that the player was an Orc who just recently came of age, and then let the player take it from there. Similar effect.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm not favouring removing dialogue, just suggesting a better analysis of the times where its not really necessary. This isn't just concerning distracting the player with dialogue lines that don't lead anywhere, its also about NPCs' logic. One other example would be Aran Linvail. I'm almost certain 90% of his dialogue lines lead always to the same answer. Thats counting despite what and how i tell him things. Do you suppose that talking to someone aggressivelly will prompt a serene answer from them? Troughtout a dialogue? I don't think so.

 

I'm not so sure its just because of the ruleset. In a somewhat recent online convo with David Gaider at RPGCodex, people asked him about what they considered to be a problem with romances, where ugly, low reputation characters with low stats for their mental capacities could not only speak fluently, but could win over their lovers. Gaider stated something which involved Bioware opting for that route because players did not liked to be challenged, if i recall correctly. One thing is to be under pressure from time constrains and not paying much attention to stats, the other is deciding that the player shouldn't be put into a difficult position because he made a wrong choice It leads to a kind of automation and sedation in gameplay that isn't very healthy, methinks.

 

I didn't said there was anything wrong with bribing, merely what possessed the devs to give players the chance to try and talk Bodhi (a high-level powerful Vampire) out of harming the group, but didn't think of giving that option when the party was confronted with a group that could possibly be bribed.

 

This isn't always the case. You may need to mix and combine your Speech values with information about who you're talking to. IIRC. talking the Master out of his plans involved high Cha, high Speech, and having read Vree's Mutant autopsy reports. While its not like that all the time, more often than not its just relying on the stat itself.]

 

I think this was true for the Saturn versions (which were divided into 3 chapters, although only one was translated and released in NA), am i correct? I played the Genesis versions and never spotted this.

 

Agreed, but thats precisely the problem. If we are to use recurring characters in the series, then you'll see how people flock over to Sarevok, or even Minsc. Imoen never really stood out in the first game. Bioware just took the liberty of expecting us to care for her because we were both orfans in Candlekeep, despite the player never experienced any kind of affinity for the character during that time. In fact, the only time where you may get some sympathy for the character is in BG2, after the torture.

 

However the character was highly underdevloped. I was much more happy with Sarevok's return then I was at the thought of having to hear "Hun, yer a queer fellow." again :ph34r:

Having made an NWN mod I have a lot of respect for the poor sods who have to do the scripting.

 

Trying to come up with responses that will apply at least in part to every character. As well as keeping the NPC's own motivations and desires in mind. Not the easiest thing in the world to do. I ended up with huge dialogue trees which you had to scroll to read.

There is a huge ammount of dialogue that always leads to the same conclusion in NwN. It's probably there to provide the illusion that your choices matter but its rather easy to see through.

 

Well you know the old saying love is blind. Although I dont agree with the reasons on that particular aspect of the game I dont see it as that much of a big deal.

I think Dave is working from the point of view that most people dont even finish games let alone play them more than once. In that case I can appreciate why he would want to expose the player to the maximum ammount of possible game on a single playthrough.

Aside from that though choices are at the heart of what roleplaying is all about. If your not going to have the player make hard choices. Then you really may as well go for the Squenix approach and create a game where you dont roleplay as much as "read" someone elses roleplaying session (something I enjoy a lot , but certainly not something I would call roleplaying in the classical sense).

Although from the looks of Jade Empire that may be the direction they are slowly heading in. Which would be a shame because its not like there are not enough JRPGs from Japan as it is.

 

Thats another example of the weakness inherent in scripting. Unless you have a generic bribe script based on hps or something your going to have to script everything individually.

 

True but as a rule you just needed speech alone. Even so people who intend to have high speech would almost certainly have high charisma too. The report in question wasnt exactly difficult to find either as I recall.

I like the anime model. You beat the crap out of each other then you talk.Talking your way out alone seems very anticlimactic. I know after I did in PST I reloaded and beat the crap out of it because it just felt like a hollow victory. Of course you end up in the bloodwars either way.

 

Long time ago but its really just to illustrate that it can be done and you dont have to force dead people into sequels. Had I killed Imoen in BG I wouldnt have been able to play BG II with the same character. It would just be too much of a stretch.

 

If you do use recuring characters then you have a responsibility to maintain continuity with them. Otherwise you are invalidating the previous experience of the player. Not that i'm against sequels but generally not enough attention is paid to the individuals experience with a previous game.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Actually that would defeat the whole purpose of the Amnesiac storyline

 

Well that was the point, to come up with something other than amnesia. I didn't come up with a flawless solution, that's pretty much obvious, but apparently it provided something plausible.

 

The point of the amnesia is that eventually you *will* have to deal with your past. Look at how it was done in PS:T and KOTOR - your past does come back to haunt you. If it didn't, there'd be no point to use an amnesiac and certainly no advantage gained in the area of exploiting player background for plot line purposes. (..) BTW, what you suggested also does offer a degree of control on part of the devs because they'd know, for instance, that the player must be an android, must have been built recently, etc. An analogy in fantasy games (aside from switching android with golem ) would be saying that the player was an Orc who just recently came of age, and then let the player take it from there. Similar effect.

 

There's also a part of the game which is under control by the devs. My initial point is that character development should belong to players. Thats why i have no problems being given a character with a premade past per se, though i'd have a problem if the majority of my remaining future decisions would be taken from me. I'm free as much as possible to develop the character of TNO, despite the fact i'll be subject to some things out of my control. In this case, the construct would possibly have a memory, just no recollection of it as his task was to behave in a given way and report it to the creator. We may even be talking of a construct who purposedly erased his knowledge of the past to experience premade personalities other than his own. Or you can come up with the excuse that his memories are there, but his inner elements that binded notions of good and evil are gone, thus rendering his memory, albeit present, something he really doesn't feel his own, and can decide to explore the situations while creating new morals and definitions. Or you could drop the idea and go with a being that found the means to travel trough time, and each change he makes changes his past, thus his memory of it. Didn't McFly in Back to the Future found himself in a similar situation? I mean it worked until part 3 :D

 

Having made an NWN mod I have a lot of respect for the poor sods who have to do the scripting.

 

Well, did you used complex and long sentences, or short and concise? Did they have several outcomes, or no?

 

Trying to come up with responses that will apply at least in part to every character. As well as keeping the NPC's own motivations and desires in mind. Not the easiest thing in the world to do. I ended up with huge dialogue trees which you had to scroll to read.

There is a huge ammount of dialogue that always leads to the same conclusion in NwN. It's probably there to provide the illusion that your choices matter but its rather easy to see through.

 

It depends on what you'd consider easy. Like the PC example, jsut because you have 120 tweakable elements in character creation doesn't mean they need to have an outcome, or a constant use in the game. If you look at the example, BG2, you'll have mutliple dialogue lines, and they most of the time lead to the same answer. What if you reduced those various dialogue lines into merely 2 or 3, but on the other hand, replaced the single answer with two answers, each with a different outcome? If you go by the concept that writing is dialogue is a hard task, that's true - but how productive is it to write it like it was in BG2? Not much. Another of Fallout's winnign aspects is that it shows what i'm talking of - few dialogue lines with differences. There are very few long-winded answers, and fewer times when you're assaulted with answering options (unless you're asking someone information over a general topic, like asking people about citiies, at which point you're given a listing of them).

 

I think Dave is working from the point of view that most people dont even finish games let alone play them more than once. In that case I can appreciate why he would want to expose the player to the maximum ammount of possible game on a single playthrough.

 

That was one of his points, however, its a weird one, given BG2 is already quite replayable for its fans. If we have the concern that players do not replay games, then why include in BG2 other things to replay with? They have locations to explore, spells to choose from and use, romances, strongholds, and classes. Weird. I'm more inclined to think they didn't had the luxury of time (despite their games usually having more time and money invested than other BIS games), or that they did not had the know-how at the time, than it was because of a supposed genuine concern over how many people wouldn't replay it.

 

Aside from that though choices are at the heart of what roleplaying is all about. If your not going to have the player make hard choices. Then you really may as well go for the Squenix approach and create a game where you dont roleplay as much as "read" someone elses roleplaying session (something I enjoy a lot , but certainly not something I would call roleplaying in the classical sense).

 

Something i wouldn't mind much, if the options and dialogues were more concise, and carried weight.

 

True but as a rule you just needed speech alone. Even so people who intend to have high speech would almost certainly have high charisma too.

 

Don't forget the high Int for added dialogue options B)

 

The report in question wasnt exactly difficult to find either as I recall.

 

You had to gain access to the Brotherhood in the first place, which wasn't necessarily easy. Either you had a high lockpick value and an electronic lockpick, or you had to search for a Holodisk in the Glow (heavilly radiated crater with automated defense forces below).

 

Long time ago but its really just to illustrate that it can be done and you dont have to force dead people into sequels. Had I killed Imoen in BG I wouldnt have been able to play BG II with the same character. It would just be too much of a stretch.

 

True. Although, if we use some of their own concepts, they could've bring Imoen back like they did with Sarevok (though honestly, i still wouldn't have payed attention to her, but it would be a moral issue, if she was placed in Hell*). Also, for a game that allows you to import information from your save file, they don't expand on it enough, do they? You only retain your level, name and class. They went to the point of tracking down if you killed Drizzt (because obviously Drizzt is uber important ), but not others that travelled with you.

 

*By that, i meant that, given she was also a Child of Bhaal, could surface in Hell, exactly where Sarevok is, after she died. The game could track that. In fact, you could have her be the victim of the Selfish test.

 

Note that i know this would remove her would-be "importance" of the main part of the narrative, but hey, i'm guessing Bioware could make some other form of assumption on behalf of the player <_<

[Gromnir]

if fallout and morrowind is your examples of compelling stories focused on protagonist, 'specially w/o any explanation as to how they is compelling and protagonist focused, then yeah, you is spouting nonsense and do not deserve the effort we has spent on replies.

 

someone called morrowind compelling? i wish i had bought that version then. the story in my copy was so uncompelling i stopped playing before i found out what it was.

well, keep in mind that the person who called fallout and morrowind compelling also noted that compelling story is purely subjective... after he notes that compelling story ain't difficult to add to a game with complete freedom of character development.

 

...

 

 

is reason why we lost interest in thread as a whole.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

p.s. case studies is very important when dealing with extreme examples o' early childhood development as nobody ever has raised a child in complete isolation... and we hopes they never does. we depend on unfortunate accidents and monstrous behavior to supply us with some small handful of examples of what happens to a child raised in isolation.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yeah, keep performing for the audience, Grom.

[Gromnir]

took how many pages last time we dealt with you to make you see that your observation that folks 'gainst d&d rules was not necessarily 'gainst more options in a crpg? am not gonna spend similar 'mount of text showing how silly you is again being in present thread. no performance by Gromnir... am too tired to go through that kina effort again.

 

hey kid, you win.

 

congrats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well, did you used complex and long sentences, or short and concise? Did they have several outcomes, or no?

 

It depends on what you'd consider easy. Like the PC example, jsut because you have 120 tweakable elements in character creation doesn't mean they need to have an outcome, or a constant use in the game. If you look at the example, BG2, you'll have mutliple dialogue lines, and they most of the time lead to the same answer. What if you reduced those various dialogue lines into merely 2 or 3, but on the other hand, replaced the single answer with two answers, each with a different outcome? If you go by the concept that writing is dialogue is a hard task, that's true - but how productive is it to write it like it was in BG2? Not much. Another of Fallout's winnign aspects is that it shows what i'm talking of - few dialogue lines with differences. There are very few long-winded answers, and fewer times when you're assaulted with answering options (unless you're asking someone information over a general topic, like asking people about citiies, at which point you're given a listing of them).

 

That was one of his points, however, its a weird one, given BG2 is already quite replayable for its fans. If we have the concern that players do not replay games, then why include in BG2 other things to replay with? They have locations to explore, spells to choose from and use, romances, strongholds, and classes. Weird. I'm more inclined to think they didn't had the luxury of time (despite their games usually having more time and money invested than other BIS games), or that they did not had the know-how at the time, than it was because of a supposed genuine concern over how many people wouldn't replay it.

 

Something i wouldn't mind much, if the options and dialogues were more concise, and carried weight.

Don't forget the high Int for added dialogue options B)

 

You had to gain access to the Brotherhood in the first place, which wasn't necessarily easy. Either you had a high lockpick value and an electronic lockpick, or you had to search for a Holodisk in the Glow (heavilly radiated crater with automated defense forces below).

 

True. Although, if we use some of their own concepts, they could've bring Imoen back like they did with Sarevok (though honestly, i still wouldn't have payed attention to her, but it would be a moral issue, if she was placed in Hell*). Also, for a game that allows you to import information from your save file, they don't expand on it enough, do they? You only retain your level, name and class. They went to the point of tracking down if you killed Drizzt (because obviously Drizzt is uber important ), but not others that travelled with you.

 

*By that, i meant that, given she was also a Child of Bhaal, could surface in Hell, exactly where Sarevok is, after she died. The game could track that. In fact, you could have her be the victim of the Selfish test.

 

Note that i know this would remove her would-be "importance" of the main part of the narrative, but hey, i'm guessing Bioware could make some other form of assumption on behalf of the player <_<

Mixture of both. I think I see what your getting at though. Spend less time on a few lines of responses for the minor NPCs so you can devote more to making the meaningful encounters.. Well, more meaningful.

 

Well choice can also equal replayability but it dosnt have to. If you only had one possible romance it might feel very forced I think a lot of people felt that about Amoen. On the other hand you give people a choice of romances and they will be happier even if they never play all of them. In this case providing choice for one single playthrough of the game is also something that makes the game more replayable.

 

For example the race/class/kit structure is very variable. However I dont think the intent was for you to ever play every possible combination do you ? While it does again add to replayabilty its primary purpose is to provide choice.

 

I think this is what Dave was getting at. They are not adding things purely on the grounds that people might replay the game. So the game is made largely accesable regardless of what stats you might pick.

Fallout with 3 int might have made for an interesting experience. But if it was your only play through of the game it would have been rather limited.

 

If you allowed for every cultural and educational variable in dialogue it would be pretty mind bogling.I'd tend to tie it to specific skills rather than to a base stat if at all. Depending on the subject a higher level skill enables a more indepth discourse.

 

It was something that was very much on the main plot of the game I thought. At least I never managed to miss it at all.

 

Well in a magical universe anything is possible. However even some sort of explanation like in the case of Sarevok is better than having them just alive again.

As long as they do better next time I wont complain overmuch.

[Judge Hades]

Quite simple how one can do this and still be effective.

 

First you start out in a small out of the way village type environment where you family lives may the be famers, slaves, merchants, or something in between. Its generic and can be filled in reasonably well with any character type. No biggie.

 

Sure it isn't epic but why start epic when its best to build up to being epic. I want the ability to create a character that I see fit. It allows me to get into the game if I have I connection with my character which is gained during the creation process. I don't mind the developers dictate the characters past before I play the character as long as I can make a character I want to play and have full power on how he or she develops, both story and rules wise, as I play the game. Once the game is started the character is mine.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Mixture of both. I think I see what your getting at though. Spend less time on a few lines of responses for the minor NPCs so you can devote more to making the meaningful encounters.. Well, more meaningful.

 

Correct

 

Well choice can also equal replayability but it dosnt have to. If you only had one possible romance it might feel very forced I think a lot of people felt that about Amoen.

 

I talked to quite some female gamers who were absolutely let down by being stuck with Annoy-men.

 

On the other hand you give people a choice of romances and they will be happier even if they never play all of them. In this case providing choice for one single playthrough of the game is also something that makes the game more replayable.

 

Hmm-hh.

 

I think this is what Dave was getting at. They are not adding things purely on the grounds that people might replay the game. So the game is made largely accesable regardless of what stats you might pick.

Fallout with 3 int might have made for an interesting experience. But if it was your only play through of the game it would have been rather limited.

 

While that's understandable, I feel that making it accessible on some things made it collapse on others.

 

If you allowed for every cultural and educational variable in dialogue it would be pretty mind bogling.I'd tend to tie it to specific skills rather than to a base stat if at all. Depending on the subject a higher level skill enables a more indepth discourse.

 

Well, you can add variations in things without making those variations depending of everything pertaining to the character. In BG2, associating with a stat would be possible - and necessary - as there weren't skills. And stats can go the same way as skills for tracking those things. If you base a character's determination of a skill level (say you track his speech skill every 10 percentual levels until its maximum, 100), you can translate this to determining the same via a stat, from 1 to 20 (its normal maximum).

[Judge Hades]

Speaking of Enema-man, I like to know what Bioware, and other companies, have against lesbian and gay romances. I mean I had a pretty hot human paladin chickie who would have loved to go at it with Viconia. HAHAHAHAHA!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

took how many pages last time we dealt with you to make you see that your observation that folks 'gainst d&d rules was not necessarily 'gainst more options in a crpg?

 

Thats right, go for brownie points. Its easy to forget that i pointed out i talked to people who said this, and the rest i said. But for a change, since you weren't aware of anyone that said it, i was in the wrong, automatically.

 

am not gonna spend similar 'mount of text showing how silly you is again being in present thread.

 

Try not to reduce me to your level.

 

You want to talk of being sillly? You ask me something totally unrelated to what was being talked on the thread, based on your loose assumption of something I said. Despite me saying I'd probably be able to do it with time, you claim I said I would pull it off. Also despite claiming I could take my time, you complain about how it wasn't done little time after you asked for it (perhaps you were expecting that easy=quick?). Then you claim I was talking of something ("complete freedom to define character and compelling story") when i wasn't. Then you disregard what I post without basis for it. Need I go on, or is this enough for you to disregard again?

 

no performance by Gromnir... am too tired to go through that kina effort again.

 

How quaint.

 

hey kid, you win.

 

congrats.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. I didn't win, and refuse that claim. What I seem to have received wass a warning as to who I shouldn't take seriously in the future. Its easy how myths are created around online personas, but in reality said personas are as fallible as they try to make others seem. I appreciate you showing me this.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Speaking of Enema-man, I like to know what Bioware, and other companies, have against lesbian and gay romances. I mean I had a pretty hot human paladin chickie who would have loved to go at it with Viconia. HAHAHAHAHA!

You could always install the fanmade Concurrent Romances, i think it allowed to have people of every race and gender have romances <_<

 

But as to that question, i don't know. Given Bioware does games for the mainstream, therefore appealing to the majority, they might also target the majority's orientation. Wouldn't surprise me.

[Judge Hades]

They could be a little more flexible don't you think. Just look at KotOR. Why the hell can't a woman get a massage from another woman? There is nothing sexual about a massage. That is just stupid.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I talked to quite some female gamers who were absolutely let down by being stuck with Annoy-men

 

Hmm-hh.

 

While that's understandable, I feel that making it accessible on some things made it collapse on others.

 

Well, you can add variations in things without making those variations depending of everything pertaining to the character. In BG2, associating with a stat would be possible - and necessary - as there weren't skills. And stats can go the same way as skills for tracking those things. If you base a character's determination of a skill level (say you track his speech skill every 10 percentual levels until its maximum, 100), you can translate this to determining the same via a stat, from 1 to 20 (its normal maximum).

Same here.

 

Well would you have been happy if it had been 3 male and 1 female ? Actually as long as the one was Viconia I would have. But you get the point

 

Dave has to think about making games that will sell to the widest possible audience. Higher production values - need to sell more units. More units sold higher expectations of sales from the next title - the more the game needs to be made accessable.

 

In a game with only stats Int or IQ is fair measure for dialogue. If you have skills though then you can write more skill oriented dialogues. Because it dosnt much matter how intelligent you are if you dont know the subject matter your never going to be able to fool someone who does like a professor. The higher the specific skill, or if you have a particular skill like legend lore the more you can find out.