Best way to start an "Adventure"

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

it's pretty hard to respect something like 'parents killed by orcs' because it's such a cliche.

 

and it would be pretty hard to invalidate something like 'lived on a farm until 17' because it don't exactly demand much by way of validation.

 

my point is that the 'total character freedom' of PnP is about as illusory as that in CRPGs. you can give yourself any backstory you want in either, but most of the time it will be politely ignored.

Isnt that one in the rule book ?

 

I wouldnt exactly call those backgrounds though. They are more like sound bites.

 

Parents killed by orcs would be quite interesting if that character happened to be in the same party of as a half orc who was actually proud of their parantage.

 

If your going to ignore the characters background then you may as well stop be a DMing and start being an author (which pays money as well).

[AlanC9]

ShadowPaladin, there's something I'm not following. You seem to be saying that PST had less freedom than BG for character development. I just don't see it, except that you can play a female in BG.

 

Both TNO and the Bhaalspawn have a predefined background. While in BG you choose race, it's trivial since your character was raised by (mostly?) humans regardless. You choose class in both games, though at a later point in PST. And personality is entirely in the hands of the player in both games.

 

So where's the significant difference?

[Darque]

There isn't any.

[Iolo]

The significant different is in character creation.

 

In BG you can choose gender, race and class of your own choosing, choosing from all D&D choices for all three. In PST, you are forced to be male, human and one of only three classes (Theif, Mage, Fighter) throughout and you are forced at the beginning to be Fighter. As you level up in BG, you can dual class to other classes and you have the choice during character creation to be a demihuman multiclass as well. These are pretty significant differences in the games. Unless you haven't played either too much, I don't know how you can think they are not major differences.

 

The fact that your character in BG is raised by humans is irrelevant to your race. You still exhibit all advantages and disadvantages of the race in D&D, technically.

 

Of course, I didn't bother reading the whole thread either.

[djkillingspree]

The significant different is in character creation.

 

In BG you can choose gender, race and class of your own choosing, choosing from all D&D choices for all three. In PST, you are forced to be male, human and one of only three classes (Theif, Mage, Fighter) throughout and you are forced at the beginning to be Fighter. As you level up in BG, you can dual class to other classes and you have the choice during character creation to be a demihuman multiclass as well. These are pretty significant differences in the games. Unless you haven't played either too much, I don't know how you can think they are not major differences.

 

The fact that your character in BG is raised by humans is irrelevant to your race. You still exhibit all advantages and disadvantages of the race in D&D, technically.

 

Of course, I didn't bother reading the whole thread either.

Well, clearly there is a difference. In Baldur's Gate, for instance, you can create a character that "roll-plays" differently, whereas in Torment you have more opportunities to "role-play" differently. Essentially, what I mean is that Torment offers you much more freedom in terms of defining your characters moral role within the story, whereas Baldur's Gate generally lets you choose between getting +1 to hit with swords or getting a bonus to fighting giants. Your choice of race made, as far as I could tell, absolutely no difference to narrative content (either designed or emergent) in Baldur's Gate. And, generally, the moral choices in Baldur's Gate were far more black and white. Torment really let you define the moral position of your character very precisely, through actions. And, those actions had an effect on the sub-narratives of the individual quests you would solve. Some even had an effect on the main narrative of the game.

 

Honestly, I don't see how anyone can site Baldur's Gate as an example of a strong game in terms of player choice. There is relatively little freedom to express the vision you have of your character in that game as compared to games like Fallout and Torment. And, if we're dealing with a player's freedom within the technical aspects of the RPG rule system, IWD2 or Fallout are much better examples, and at least IWD2 was much better balanced for all sorts of wacky party configurations.

[Iolo]

There was more choice in BG as to how you created your character and how you chose to develop as you increased in level. I don't call this "roll-playing" either. It's the heart of what the rules of D&D are which frankly Planescape Torment played very loosely with. How can giving the player the choice of gender, race and class not be role-playing unless you have a narrow definition of roleplaying. Remember what it was that made D&D a role-playing game to begin with.

Any combinations of those three choices gives you roleplaying but perhaps in BG2 you need to fill in some of the blanks yourself as to how that affects your roleplaying as opposed to getting it spoonfed to you like in PS:T. In some aspects PS:T is more similar to an Adventure game. A game could follow the D&D rules more closely and still allow lots of player choice. If anything following the rules closely gives the player potentially more choices.

 

But if you want to debate choices. How many choices in PS:T really affect how the end turns up? At the very end of the game, if you were good you fought Ignus. If you were bad you fought Vhailor. But that's the end of the game and how many choices you make throughout the game really changed its ending? It's like with Deus Ex. Nothing throughout the entire game had much effect on the ending. You still had the choices of three endings regardless of how you played the game up until that point.

 

Of course I never claimed BG was a game with a great amount of player choice. It certainly was a linear game.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Nevermind, post was blown away

Edited March 23, 2004 by Zantetsuken

[djkillingspree]

There was more choice in BG as to how you created your character and how you chose to develop as you increased in level. I don't call this "roll-playing" either. It's the heart of what the rules of D&D are which frankly Planescape Torment played very loosely with. How can giving the player the choice of gender, race and class not be role-playing unless you have a narrow definition of roleplaying. Remember what it was that made D&D a role-playing game to begin with.

Any combinations of those three choices gives you roleplaying but perhaps in BG2 you need to fill in some of the blanks yourself as to how that affects your roleplaying as opposed to getting it spoonfed to you like in PS:T. In some aspects PS:T is more similar to an Adventure game. A game could follow the D&D rules more closely and still allow lots of player choice. If anything following the rules closely gives the player potentially more choices.

 

But if you want to debate choices. How many choices in PS:T really affect how the end turns up? At the very end of the game, if you were good you fought Ignus. If you were bad you fought Vhailor. But that's the end of the game and how many choices you make throughout the game really changed its ending? It's like with Deus Ex. Nothing throughout the entire game had much effect on the ending. You still had the choices of three endings regardless of how you played the game up until that point.

 

Of course I never claimed BG was a game with a great amount of player choice. It certainly was a linear game.

Why does every choice have to be reflected as a change in the ending?

 

The fact is, the individual quests in Torment could often be solved in interesting and character defining ways, whereas in BG the quests tended to be more stereotypically good/evil.

 

What BG did not do was make the choice of gender, race and class significant outside of combat. Characters in the game very rarely reacted in any substantial way to your choice of gender, race or class. In that case, the ability of a player to select these has practically nothing to do with his or her role within the narrative of the game, which if I'm not mistaken is the whole purpose of role-playing.

 

On the other hand, in Torment some of your choices made a huge difference throughout the game and in the ending. There are quite a few ways that the last encounter can be approached, and many ways it can be solved. As for the ultimate ending, that was the destiny of the Nameless One regardless of how you played him. What that ending meant, though, changed significantly based on how you played the game. Which, I think, is a lot more interesting from a role-playing perspective than any choice BG offered me. Essentially, all BG offered were the sterotypical roles of "I am good, so I will vanquish the evil!" and "I am evil, so I want the power that the evil people have!". PS:T let you choose a variety of motives for your character and provided a variety of factions you could choose to ally yourself with.

 

Clearly, though, a choice that affects the rule system of a game but doesn't affect the player's role within the narrative is not a role-playing choice. BG's narrative did not change in any substantive way, whether you were a man, woman, elf, dwarf, cleric or fighter. PS:T's moral decisions, on the other hand, allowed the player to have a much more complex way to express their alignment (through the dynamic alignment system and through the use of actions that were independently lawful/neutral/chaotic and good/neutral/evil) and often did change aspects of the narrative, in addition to what the ultimate message of the narrative was.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What you assume isnt really my problem.

And you wonder why i'd be confused if you can't even pay attention to what you say yourself.

 

I think you just answered you own question there. It's about making presumsions if you presume that the game is there to allow you to take your chosen path through it and you engineer your character

to that then your not roleplaying.

To your character the world is real and the real world dosnt always let people do what they want and niether should a virtual one.

 

No, i didn't answer my own question. And you barely answered it yourself.

 

You claim that people that decide to engineer a character to have a given path trough a game is powergaming. To which I ask, what would you consider a better alternative? You can't have the character decide for itself, that much is obvious. And if you insist that character freedom - your roleplaying zenith - amounts to powergaming because we are deciding on the character's behalf, then what what do you propose? Apparently, people who never played a given CRPG before, and don't know what it entails, are apparent powergamers because they decide to choose a line of work, or a set of skills for the character in which they want to specialize. And what to say of a CRPG which is heavilly combat-oriented - any choice you make in character creation will apparently turn into powergaming by your reasoning.

 

But here's the gist of it. You stress that choosing something like a character who is very proficient in speech amounts to the same as choosing someone who is very proficient in battle - powergaming. Since you're a supposed roleplayer, wouldn't you agree that, regardless of how one builds their character, roleplaying stresses the character's personality and motivations, and as such, that how I play the character is what matters? If you disagree, so be it, i'll have a field day anyway once I show the rest of the thread to an old GM of mine, and his current players. If you agree, however, then what makes you determine that character choices players make are automatically powergaming? Why do you feel the need to dicatate that on others? What if i want to stress my character's personality and motivations as I see fit, and for that, decide that he will be a character who is very adept at talking and convincing others - how do you determine the difference between "real motivations for my character" as opposed to what my choice of statitstics determine?

 

Yawn.. really is that the best you can do. You know if you stopped trying to be clever. Emphasis on trying these debates might even prove fruitful.

Oh no, its far from being the best of what i can do. And come now, if i stopped trying to be clever, i would've lost some fine opportunities displaying where you are wrong (despite your refusal in admitting it), wouldn't I? We can't have that.

 

But i'll explain what i intended with that question.

 

On one hand you claim PS:T does not have character freedom. You reject all other character development and growth that the player handles (and if you don't reject, then you're mute about it), and ascertain that character freedom is only about the possibility to create a character. I've yet to find a PnP player with the same vision (or a GM for that matter), but alas, lets move on.

 

Now, my question's purpose, explained: not long ago, you were of the mindset that people could not roleplay a character which they have not created. And obviously, not only you shifted from toe to toe trying to unsuccessfully explain this, you also brought up how PS:T was a prime candidate for this. So, if you state that:

 

1) PS:T has no character freedom (in your mind, that translates into no character creation);

 

2) You cannot roleplay with a premade character.

 

Then, the question still stands. Why do you call the Final Fantasy series RPGs? You state that you "go by the definition". If they have two of your "no-go's" in terms of roleplaying, then deciding to call them RPGs seems to be too lenient, even going by the definition, for a self-proclaimed roleplayer. Unless there is a reason why you make an exception for console games and not for one PC game, in this case, Torment? From a so-called roleplayer, you have highly weird conventions about what constitutes roleplaying and what doesn't.

 

In the end, I merely wanted to outline that it would seem that you can't maintain standards (this isn't much of a newsflash to those that know you, anyway) and your vision of a certain thing - in this case, what's being discussed - is not only contrived, but apparently also very yours, and not universal, as you so often tried to make it seem.

 

"Trying to be clever" has its perks, specially when one actually manages to be.

 

 

How many choices in PS:T really affect how the end turns up? At the very end of the game, if you were good you fought Ignus. If you were bad you fought Vhailor. But that's the end of the game and how many choices you make throughout the game really changed its ending? It's like with Deus Ex. Nothing throughout the entire game had much effect on the ending. You still had the choices of three endings regardless of how you played the game up until that point.

 

How you experienced the world could affect how you solved the endgame as well. Aside the already mentioned Ignus/Vhailor spiel, you'll have different ways of dealing with the Incarnations based on that, and the Transcendant One has its own power levels adjusted to somewhat mirror yours. You'll also have 9 different ways of reaching the end - some of which depending on choices you made over the course of the game, and those choices range from having used items, to having a given item with you, pumping the Transcendant One for information use it on the fly, or how some of your statistical values are adjusted. While not brilliant, these are different from those examples your brought from Deus Ex. In Deus Ex it really doesn't matter, as character power, growth, and deeds in the past do not matter; in PS:T some, albeit considered minor, do. Just for a quick reminder, these are from a FAQ for Torment, so spoilers ensue:

 

The Endings: (from Platter)

 

Merge with TTO:

1. Threaten him with the "Blade of the Immortal."

2. Threaten to unmake yourself with your will (min. WIS of 24).

3. Threaten him with your true name (must have used the Bronze Sphere).

4. Convince him things will be ok if you merge (min. CHA of 24).

 

Kill yourself:

1. Use the "Blade of the Immortal."

2. Unmake yourself with your will (min. WIS of 24).

 

Kill TTO:

1. Kill him by normal combat alone.

2. Resurrect one of your companions while talking to him. Pick Morte

first as he is not really dead, then you can pick someone else too.

3. Resurrect all your party members by tricking him to go check the

Shadows (need to have found the "Sounding Stone" in the room with the

crystal).

 

 

-This is discounting ways to handle the Incarnations, which, although small in comparison, i'm certain of at least one of them allowing knowledge from your past adventures to be used in conversation (the Practical Incarnation, and the ancient language).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

ShadowPaladin, there's something I'm not following. You seem to be saying that PST had less freedom than BG for character development. I just don't see it, except that you can play a female in BG.

 

Both TNO and the Bhaalspawn have a predefined background. While in BG you choose race, it's trivial since your character was raised by (mostly?) humans regardless. You choose class in both games, though at a later point in PST. And personality is entirely in the hands of the player in both games.

 

So where's the significant difference?

In Baldurs Gate you have to be a Bhaal Spawn and it ends there. It's simply a part of what you are (granted its a rather large part but anyway).

The mistake Bioware made was having you grow up in CandleKeep for a variety of reasons.

 

It's much like FO, you have no choice but to be a vault dweller but beyond that you are free to do as you please.

 

In PST you are a specific pre generated character. You either do nothing except follow the story. Or you create a background and have it constantly invalidated by the game.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The Endings: (from Platter)

 

Merge with TTO:

1. Threaten him with the "Blade of the Immortal."

2. Threaten to unmake yourself with your will (min. WIS of 24).

3. Threaten him with your true name (must have used the Bronze Sphere).

4. Convince him things will be ok if you merge (min. CHA of 24).

 

Kill yourself:

1. Use the "Blade of the Immortal."

2. Unmake yourself with your will (min. WIS of 24).

 

Kill TTO:

1. Kill him by normal combat alone.

2. Resurrect one of your companions while talking to him. Pick Morte

first as he is not really dead, then you can pick someone else too.

3. Resurrect all your party members by tricking him to go check the

Shadows (need to have found the "Sounding Stone" in the room with the

crystal).

 

 

-This is discounting ways to handle the Incarnations, which, although small in comparison, i'm certain of at least one of them allowing knowledge from your past adventures to be used in conversation (the Practical Incarnation, and the ancient language).

Yes all well and good but you have missed something so obvious. Oddly enough so has everyone else and its a REAL kicker.

 

All your guff about freedom in the game is about to be rendered meaningless in one stroke.

 

Here we go...

 

Without freedom of character it's pointless giving the player control unless you artificially wipe the characters memory every time.

 

A pre generated character that already has a personality in place dosnt need anyone to make choices for them.

 

So if Revan never lost his memory you couldnt have KOTOR. If TNO never lost his memory you couldnt have PST.

 

Because you could never suprise the character with a revelation which they were already fully aware of.

 

Which leaves you with two choices.

 

Either have every character in RPGs from now until doomsday without memories.

Or take the route Squenix have taken and have fully aware character acting out their parts in the story like an interactive movie.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

On the other hand, in Torment some of your choices made a huge difference throughout the game and in the ending.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

In PST you are a specific pre generated character. You either do nothing except follow the story.

Again i have to question just how much you know of the game. There are things to do aside following the story. Just like in your previous examples, BG2 and Fallout. When you exit Chateu Irenicus you don't have to follow him right away, just as you don't have to search for Ravel as soon as you leave the Mortuary, and just as you don't have to go for the Water Chip as soon as you leave Vault 13.

 

Or you create a background and have it constantly invalidated by the game.

 

You can't create a background for PS:T, as you so pointed out; and having a would-be player-created background for PS:T getting constantly invalidated is a fact, as it was for BG2. No exception.

 

Yes all well and good but you have missed something so obvious. Oddly enough so has everyone else and its a REAL kicker.

 

All your guff about freedom in the game is about to be rendered meaningless in one stroke.

 

Here we go...

Can't wait to see this.

 

Without freedom of character it's pointless giving the player control unless you artificially wipe the characters memory every time.

 

A pre generated character that already has a personality in place dosnt need anyone to make choices for them. So if Revan never lost his memory you couldnt have KOTOR. If TNO never lost his memory you couldnt have PST.

 

Unfortunately, you fail to see beyond your own mentality. For someone who accuses others of not seeing the obvious, the obvious iluded you again. The Nameless One's personality is *not* set in place - he doesn't even have one. His previous personalities, traits, ways of being, are nullified everytime he dies, and everytime he comes to himself, he has no personality whatsoever. You get to define it during the time you play, as can be validated by the plethora of character-defining choices during the game, and the quite obvious change of self-awareness provided by the alignment tracking. Even without the loss of memory, any other plot device could be installed, because the amnesia was only a premise, and not defining of the character. When you begin the game, he's as empty and in need of being controlled by a player as any other CRPG character, be it PS:T, Fallout or BG2.

 

 

So, where is this powerful destruction of what we said? Other than inside your mind, that is?

 

 

It shouldnt come as any suprise to anyone that PST had move inovolved choices. Its very simple why that is the case. PST is written for a single character about which the designers know absolutely everything before the game ships. It's like a choose your own adventure book (do those things still exist?) you may shape the story but your shaping it for that one character. If you remove that character oops no more story. On the other hand any Child of Bhaal will do for BG it dosnt require a specific one. In the same way any Vault Dweller will do for Fallout.

This a wrong notion. You are no more turning a page in PS:T when you forcefully have to see Ravel then you turning a page as you are forcefully being captured by Irenicus in Spellhold. In the same way, the writers behind BG2 already knew how they wanted the character to grow - that's why you can't say no to being captured initially, why you can't say no to being captured again, why you can't say no to having to side with a Guild, why you can't say no in many ocasions. In the same way that PS:T is centered about the character of TNO, so is the BG saga around the character you create. As much as the people behind Torment had an idea of how TNO would develop in key instances, so did the writers of the Bhaalspawn you controlled.

 

Since the basic thrust of the argument here was about how much control should you give the designer with your character its interesting that so many people are bringing up a game which places far more contraints than KOTOR.

 

Could be because your idea of character freedom is different than that of most people. People are giving examples of games that allowed for a high amount of freedom in defining the character, and wheter you like it or not, even if you understand it or not, that was one of the things PS:T allowed for.

 

When in fact both games follow a very specific series of rules in order to work. Rules that BG and IWD dont (hence far more freedom of character).

 

Your comparison doesn't show much thought, given BG and IWD follow the same pattern of story chokepoitns and making assumptions for the player, and ocasionally placing them in a place which they don't have a choice over. The fact you can point out the strict rules in PS:T, but cannot do the same for BG2, when everyone else can, shows you're being nothing more than a biased person in the whole matter, and of why you can't be taken seriously.

 

>And incidentally, thank you so much for not answering my larger part of the post back there. Your silence in the matter is more revealing than words.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"A pre generated character that already has a personality in place dosnt need anyone to make choices for them. So if Revan never lost his memory you couldnt have KOTOR. If TNO never lost his memory you couldnt have PST."

 

Unfortunately, you fail to see beyond your own mentality. For someone who accuses others of not seeing the obvious, the obvious iluded you again. The Nameless One's personality is *not* set in place - he doesn't even have one. His previous personalities, traits, ways of being, are nullified everytime he dies, and everytime he comes to himself, he has no personality whatsoever. You get to define it during the time you play, as can be validated by the plethora of character-defining choices during the game, and the quite obvious change of self-awareness provided by the alignment tracking. Even without the loss of memory, any other plot device could be installed, because the amnesia was only a premise, and not defining of the character. When you begin the game, he's as empty and in need of being controlled by a player as any other CRPG character, be it PS:T, Fallout or BG2.

 

 

 

Umm how is what you said different from what I said about you can only have a game like PST if you erase the characters memory ?

 

How does that alter that in order to follow a PST style of game it must therefore follow that you would need to remove the characters memories every time?

 

So congratulations on confirming what I've been saying all along.

 

BTW It's not true that everytime he dies he comes back with no memory. Once the game starts it no longer occurs. Obviously because you cant erase the players memory each time he dies There is probably an explanation for that somewhere. But we all know the above is the real reason it has to be that way.

 

So what other plot device is there that can turn a fully fuctional adult into a blank slate aside from memory loss? I cant wait to hear these marvelous alternate plot devices.

 

I dont play the selective quotes game with anyone. You should know that by now. If you want a response to your whole post then use paragraphs not quoting each and every sentence or your never going to get a response.Not that I really needed to because until you come up with the alternatives to memory loss the rest of your post is pretty worthless.

 

The other big issue is if someone dosnt like the particular character they may well not even give the game a second look. Lots of people feel that way about the current crop of FF heroes Tidus and Varn.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Umm how is what you said different from what I said about you can only have a game like PST if you erase the characters memory ?

What you quoted was to counter your claim that the game had the character's personality set in stone, when it doesn't. Do try and show some respect by paying attention to what I write, since that's what I'm doing with what you write as well. This is what you wrote:

 

A pre generated character that already has a personality in place dosnt need anyone to make choices for them. So if Revan never lost his memory you couldnt have KOTOR. If TNO never lost his memory you couldnt have PST.

 

They don't have premade personalities. Premade pasts, yes.

 

How does that alter that in order to follow a PST style of game it must therefore follow that you would need to remove the characters memories every time?

Let me play that game as well, but with house rules. You claim its impossible to do as i suggest (despite what I suggested already being done; you and Gromnir totally misunderstood what i said, and went this route, fine). Ok, until you prove that it can't be done, I won't believe it. If you say its not possible, then you must have calculated many possibilties and made many tests, so explain to us how you reached that conclusion.

 

So congratulations on confirming what I've been saying all along.

 

The levels of denial and self-elevation are almost funny.

 

So what other plot device is there that can turn a fully fuctional adult into a blank slate aside from memory loss? I cant wait to hear these marvelous alternate plot devices.

I can think of a country which enforces a penal system where, if pregnant women birth a child, but dies while in prison before fulfilling their time, the child is placed in prison and is set to carry out the remainder of the sentence on behalf of the mother. The child would receive some form of training, or education (or not, optionally). During a routine transfer of prisoners, your shuttle crashes and you are one of many prisoners who have never seen the outside world, and are veritably a blank slate from the get go, much like TNO, unaware of what surrounds him, or what to do, or how to act.

 

But you're probably after a system where it's exactly like PS:T, but without using amnesia.

 

Ever considered a possibility where who you control may be manipulated into supressing memories? Or what if the Nameless One was being mind-controlled and was not aware of this? What if he didn't suffered from amnesia but simply was prevented from accessing his memory, and what he thought to be his decisions were the decisions of that which controlled him?

 

What if TTO, instead of trying to kill TNO from a distance, decided to lure him into where he was - the Fortress of Regrets - and remotely took over TNO's conscience (blocking his memory, simulating amnesia) and guided him into where he was? The Incarnations, trapped in the Fortress, could keep on suggesting TNO - via the "prickling sensation" - on ocasional parts of the game.

 

I dont play the selective quotes game with anyone. You should know that by now. If you want a response to your whole post then use paragraphs not quoting each and every sentence or your never going to get a response.

 

Don't be a hypocrite. If you don't "play the selective quotes game", as you put it, then why are you doing it as you type, selecting what to quote from my posts and answering what you feel like?

 

Not that I really needed to because until you come up with the alternatives to memory loss the rest of your post is pretty worthless.

 

Its easy to deem worthless what doesn't suit you, isn't it? Still living up to your reputation, i see. Oh well, like i said, your silence is an answer in itself.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

What you quoted was to counter your claim that the game had the character's personality set in stone, when it doesn't. Do try and show some respect by paying attention to what I write, since that's what I'm doing with what you write as well. This is what you wrote:

 

They don't have premade personalities. Premade pasts, yes.

 

Let me play that game as well, but with house rules. You claim its impossible to do as i suggest (despite what I suggested already being done; you and Gromnir totally misunderstood what i said, and went this route, fine). Ok, until you prove that it can't be done, I won't believe it. If you say its not possible, then you must have calculated many possibilties and made many tests, so explain to us how you reached that conclusion.

 

The levels of denial and self-elevation are almost funny.

 

I can think of a country which enforces a penal system where, if pregnant women birth a child, but dies while in prison before fulfilling their time, the child is placed in prison and is set to carry out the remainder of the sentence on behalf of the mother. The child would receive some form of training, or education (or not, optionally). During a routine transfer of prisoners, your shuttle crashes and you are one of many prisoners who have never seen the outside world, and are veritably a blank slate from the get go, much like TNO, unaware of what surrounds him, or what to do, or how to act.

 

But you're probably after a system where it's exactly like PS:T, but without using amnesia.

 

Ever considered a possibility where who you control may be manipulated into supressing memories? Or what if the Nameless One was being mind-controlled and was not aware of this? What if he didn't suffered from amnesia but simply was prevented from accessing his memory, and what he thought to be his decisions were the decisions of that which controlled him?

 

What if TTO, instead of trying to kill TNO from a distance, decided to lure him into where he was - the Fortress of Regrets - and remotely took over TNO's conscience (blocking his memory, simulating amnesia) and guided him into where he was? The Incarnations, trapped in the Fortress, could keep on suggesting TNO - via the "prickling sensation" - on ocasional parts of the game.

 

Don't be a hypocrite. If you don't "play the selective quotes game", as you put it, then why are you doing it as you type, selecting what to quote from my posts and answering what you feel like?

 

Its easy to deem worthless what doesn't suit you, isn't it? Still living up to your reputation, i see. Oh well, like i said, your silence is an answer in itself.

Exqueeze me ? I've never said that. I said the reason why the characters personality wasnt there is because they removed it by using amnesia. Without amnesia the character already has a personality.

 

No they dont have personalities because they have been erased. Really how many times do I have to say this before it sinks in for you?

 

Actually I've claimed its impossible to have a pre made character with no defined personality unless you remove it. And the only thing that removes a defined personality is , yep you guesed it amnesia.

 

I'm not denying anything. Nor am I trying to elavate myself. You really need to stop approaching these things so personaly because it blinds you to the obvious.

 

Even so the character would have developed a personality. Children raised by wolves take on the characteristics of wolves you know. If the child has already been indoctrinated then it has a personality. It may well find out that everything it thinks it knows is a lie. That was done with Yuna in FFX by the way if you need a reference. The character you proposed maybe in unfamiliar surroundings but that has nothing at all to do with personality. If you stuck me in the Amazon I would be in unfamiliar surroundings but I wouldnt suddenly stop being who I was.

Now if the crash caused the character to lose his memory. Then he would be a blank slate. But again your left with the old one trick pony.

 

Actually I'm not after any specific system at all. Simply trying to conclude if its possible to have a game with the connections of PST but without using the "cheats".

 

Blocking someones memory is just another form of amnesia.

 

Because it dosnt take up page after page of long quoted posts. I only needed that one particular quote to kill your argument so the rest would have been a waste of time. Do you find something offensive about paragraphs?

 

Like I said if you cant solve the how to make a character a blank slate without giving it amnesia. The rest of what you say is never going to matter anyway.

If there is no solution, then your simply going to have to accept that in order for a game to allow character freedom it wont be PST and not buy it. Really dosnt matter to me.

[Gromnir]

exactly. poor fella is kinda confused.

 

I know you're an intelligent person, so when you tell the truth, I usually have no problems with what you say, but honestly, your idea that i'm confused or something, comes off as an empty and pointless statement, and your refusal to explain your motivation for quoting what i said earlier and make a fuss out of it makes me wonder if this isn't mere trolling.

 

am still wiating for his story...

You were the one who told me to "take my time"... getting itchy?

 

or at least an example of a game where you gots a compelling story focused on a protagonist that can be anything. claims that he gave examples... but we sure not see any. surely wasn't suggesting that morrowind or fallout fit the bill?

 

Surely you forgot the part where i stated that "compelling" is subjective? Wait you didn't forgot - you simply dismissed it as an excuse. Convenient.

are not even replying to our posts no more... is just complaining that we is mean and then you spouts ridiculously meaningless statements.

 

oh well... as soon as you learns to pay attention, we will respond.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Exqueeze me ? I've never said that.

 

That has been one of your recurring themes when talking of Torment.

 

Actually I've claimed its impossible to have a pre made character with no defined personality unless you remove it. And the only thing that removes a defined personality is , yep you guesed it amnesia.

 

I already gave the example of being taken over by someone or something which blocks your memories. If you want to start with a pre-gen, without personality, consider someone who is a creator of beings (artificial or not, left to discretion), and decides to create one such being set to explore the world. However, the creator determines all of the functions of the being, but before it could give it a personality matrix, he dies (or disappears, if you want to gve mistery to players). You have a construct with abilities, the knowledge to use them, but without any knowledge of who/what it is, and why its there. Only a preset command of learning. Pre-gen, no amnesia, but no knowledge of the purpose of the self, either. No removal of it either, just an utter lack of it.

 

I suppose i could then venture off and have the character being able to insert random motivational chips in it, each giving the character different takes on life (Little Big Adventure's different Moods come to mind), but that's another thing entirely...

 

I'm not denying anything. Nor am I trying to elavate myself. You really need to stop approaching these things so personaly because it blinds you to the obvious.

 

Hey, i approach things as they approach me as well.

 

Even so the character would have developed a personality.

 

Would it? How do you know that TTO's control would allow TNO to develop free will, and a personality of its own?

 

Children raised by wolves take on the characteristics of wolves you know. If the child has already been indoctrinated then it has a personality. It may well find out that everything it thinks it knows is a lie. That was done with Yuna in FFX by the way if you need a reference. The character you proposed maybe in unfamiliar surroundings but that has nothing at all to do with personality. If you stuck me in the Amazon I would be in unfamiliar surroundings but I wouldnt suddenly stop being who I was.

Now if the crash caused the character to lose his memory. Then he would be a blank slate. But again your left with the old one trick pony.

 

Hardly see why it's a one trick pony. If the child was not given the opportunity to develop a personality while incarcerated, then he'd be even more of a blank slate. No contact with outside world. No contact with other prisoners. No contact - or rare - with guards. Not much room to create a full personality.

 

Blocking someones memory is just another form of amnesia.

 

Amnesia is characterized as a total or partial loss of memory; preventing you from remembering something is different. As an example, a person who can't move the his body from the waist down is a paraplegic; if you have someone forced into not being able to move from the waist down doesn't mean the person is also a paraplegic, just that he can't use them.

 

Because it dosnt take up page after page of long quoted posts. I only needed that one particular quote to kill your argument so the rest would have been a waste of time.

 

You claimed you didn't played quoting games, when in fact, you do. You quote what you feel like - claiming you don't is fine, until one backtracks the thread and sees you're doing exactly that which you claim you don't.

 

Again, stop being a hypocrite. It doesn't suit you.

 

Do you find something offensive about paragraphs?

 

Nope. The real question is, do you find something offensive about answering everything that's thrown you way?

 

Like I said if you cant solve the how to make a character a blank slate without giving it amnesia.

 

I just did. Feel free to ignore it, though.

 

The rest of what you say is never going to matter anyway.

 

You were talking of me taking things personally back there, but I suggest you'd take your own advice.

 

If there is no solution, then your simply going to have to accept that in order for a game to allow character freedom it wont be PST and not buy it. Really dosnt matter to me.

 

So, if it doesn't matter to you, why mention it?

 

 

are not even replying to our posts no more... is just complaining that we is mean and then you spouts ridiculously meaningless statements.

 

Excuse me?

 

>You were the one that prompted me to do something based on what I said' date=' albeit what I said couldn't possibly lead you to asking me that. You either misunderstood my point, or just felt like causing a ruckus, which I wouldn't be surprised. What I said, i'll repeat - a character's development works fine if enough freedom is given to the player to do so. Fallout did what I was talking of.

 

>You were the one that stated, quote:

 

and unless you clarify much, what you is asking for has not really ever been done. complete freedom to define character and compelling story... ain't ever seen that.

 

Guess what? I wasn't talking of "complete freedom" to define character and compelling story. What I said was this:

 

Regardless, what I wrote was about character development, which is possible of happening outside strict story-driven aspects.

 

Paladin claimed that more freedom to the player was a burden, as he mentioned that it required more work on behalf of the player to define the character. Again, I point to Fallout, where moving trough the game created your own story without pressure.

 

But to you, this meant I'm not responding to you, that I'm just complaining, and spouting ridiculously meaningless statements.

 

>Then you say, correctly, that you're still waiting for the story, and I reminded you of what you said yourself, to take my time.

 

But to you, this meant I'm not responding to you, that I'm just complaining, and spouting ridiculously meaningless statements.

 

>Then you questioned if I was saying that Morrowind and Fallout fit the bill, and after my confirmation of this...

 

...you claim I'm not answering you, that I'm just complaining, and spouting ridiculously meaningless statements... And to finalize, your asinine comment:

 

oh well... as soon as you learns to pay attention, we will respond.

 

Here's the deal: like I said, I know you're an intelligent person, but honestly, this is becoming absolutely stupid on your behalf. I don't know wheter your orc speech is finally coagulating in your brain, if you're intent on being confrontational for the hell of it, or whatever. Your attitude on this one shows how disrepectful, arrogant, and untrustworthy you can be. I'm not even going to bother finish compiling the rest of what you asked - a pity, as I just finished dealing with the concept that involved your requisite of having the character and story being unimportant - because I'm not really going to spend more time typing for someone who gets a kick out of acting like a dismissive, pompous ass.

 

But I'm guessing that "d00d, we knows j00 didt underst00d! HAR HAR HAR Good Fun LOLZ!!! " will be somewhat likely to be in your reply.

 

Take my statement and action as you will. If you ever feel the need to actually treat people respectfully, we'll be around.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That has been one of your recurring themes when talking of Torment.

 

 

I already gave the example of being taken over by someone or something which blocks your memories. If you want to start with a pre-gen, without personality, consider someone who is a creator of beings (artificial or not, left to discretion), and decides to create one such being set to explore the world. However, the creator determines all of the functions of the being, but before it could give it a personality matrix, he dies (or disappears, if you want to gve mistery to players). You have a construct with abilities, the knowledge to use them, but without any knowledge of who/what it is, and why its there. Only a preset command of learning. Pre-gen, no amnesia, but no knowledge of the purpose of the self, either. No removal of it either, just an utter lack of it.

 

I suppose i could then venture off and have the character being able to insert random motivational chips in it, each giving the character different takes on life (Little Big Adventure's different Moods come to mind), but that's another thing entirely...

 

Hey, i approach things as they approach me as well.

 

Would it? How do you know that TTO's control would allow TNO to develop free will, and a personality of its own?

 

 

Hardly see why it's a one trick pony. If the child was not given the opportunity to develop a personality while incarcerated, then he'd be even more of a blank slate. No contact with outside world. No contact with other prisoners. No contact - or rare - with guards. Not much room to create a full personality.

 

Amnesia is characterized as a total or partial loss of memory; preventing you from remembering something is different. As an example, a person who can't move the his body from the waist down is a paraplegic; if you have someone forced into not being able to move from the waist down doesn't mean the person is also a paraplegic, just that he can't use them.

 

 

You claimed you didn't played quoting games, when in fact, you do. You quote what you feel like - claiming you don't is fine, until one backtracks the thread and sees you're doing exactly that which you claim you don't.

 

Again, stop being a hypocrite. It doesn't suit you.

 

Nope. The real question is, do you find something offensive about answering everything that's thrown you way?

 

 

I just did. Feel free to ignore it, though.

 

You were talking of me taking things personally back there, but I suggest you'd take your own advice.

 

So, if it doesn't matter to you, why mention it?

Umm no never has. The recuring theme for PST is that you are always TNO and the only reason you get to choose what he does is because he cant remember anything.

 

But the character wouldnt be aware that something was blocking their memories. Which kind of defeats the purpose. To all intents and purposes the character would be an amnesiac.

 

I wasnt refering to your TTO example but the one of the indoctrinated child.

 

They would still have a personality based on those surroundings in the same was someone who is raised by wolves has one based on theirs. It may not be one you would recognise and you would probably be talking about a fair bit of mental illness along the way as well. People who are isolated for long periods are pretty easy to look up.

 

Exactly and the mental block is causing them to not remember or misremember. In the case of not being able to move someones legs it would depend on the cause. If the effect is a permenant one then they qualify. If its something dumb like their legs are tied together, well then their legs are tied together.

 

Look how long your previous post is that should answer your question quite succintly.

 

I'm not, your just not using my definition of the quotes game.

 

Actually you didnt you just gave it another cause. There are many different ways to get amnesia. Blow to the head, traumatic event, electrical discharge, chemical abuse. But the end result is still the same.

 

Thats hardly peronal, if you cant solve the route cause then it really dosnt matter what else you are saying. I'm assaulting your arguement not you.

 

Because it's interesting. If people want the level of detail that PST offers then it would appear they have to accept the contraints of having a pre generated character with some form of amnesia and a story based around said character recovering his memories.

 

Now there is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as there is a market for such games and the market is large enough to support them. Look at FF, it proves you dont even need character choice or player choice to make a successful game.

 

I just find it kind of ironic that your criticising KOTOR for forcing you into a role and having poor combat when PST does both of those things in spades

[newc0253]

Hardly see why it's a one trick pony. If the child was not given the opportunity to develop a personality while incarcerated, then he'd be even more of a blank slate. No contact with outside world. No contact with other prisoners. No contact - or rare - with guards. Not much room to create a full personality.

i've no idea how this matters to your argument - i can barely figure out who is arguing what any more - but fyi a child 'raised' in complete isolation wouldn't be a blank slate - they'd be a complete and utter vegetable that would be incapable of having a personality in the first place. not exactly what you'd call great roleplaying material.

 

just a thought.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Hardly see why it's a one trick pony. If the child was not given the opportunity to develop a personality while incarcerated, then he'd be even more of a blank slate. No contact with outside world. No contact with other prisoners. No contact - or rare - with guards. Not much room to create a full personality.

i've no idea how this matters to your argument - i can barely figure out who is arguing what any more - but fyi a child 'raised' in complete isolation wouldn't be a blank slate - they'd be a complete and utter vegetable that would be incapable of having a personality in the first place. not exactly what you'd call great roleplaying material.

 

just a thought.

Well my arguement is basically that you cant have a game like PST without using the same devices PST used (which seems to be confirmed by KOTOR).

 

So games with different types of character freedom should always have that taken into account when you compare them.

 

IE Its unrealistic to expect BG to validate your characters actions to the same degree. Except when those actions are based on being a child of Bhaal.

 

And its unrealistic to expect even that level of validation from IWD because the designers know nothing in advance about your character.

 

The more freedom you have to create your own character. The less the game is able to validate it on a personal level.

 

And the other bit is that unless you remove a characters previous memories then they would be perfectly capable of making their own choices the way you and I do (*and the way its portrayed in the FF games). Unless of course you started your character at the age of 1 when they are just developing motor skills. Then you really would have a blank slate. It just seems a pretty odd start for a game...Rugrats the roleplaying game anyone ?? :D

 

To be honest I'm not sure what Z is trying to conclude.

[Judge Hades]

One way to solve that is using the multiple beginning paths story hooks. You create your character and based on character creation choices and outlooks it shuttles you to one beginning point and the game evolves from there (and don't forget good length of gameplay). Add in multiple branching points for possible endings you could theoretically make a game that would have a multitude of replayability.

 

It will never happen, but it would be a near perfect game.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Umm no never has. The recuring theme for PST is that you are always TNO and the only reason you get to choose what he does is because he cant remember anything.

 

"Never" is a strong word. I seem to recall you implying this several times, if not outright saying it, on the IPLY boards, for instance.

 

But the character wouldnt be aware that something was blocking their memories. Which kind of defeats the purpose. To all intents and purposes the character would be an amnesiac.

 

If you're talking of the construct example: There's a difference between having memories blocked, and not having memories at all. The construct example wouldn't have anything remotely similar to amnesia. If you have amnesia, that means you had something to remember, and now lost it. The construct wouldn't have amnesia, in this case.

 

If you're talking of TNO: TNO also isn't aware that his memories have problems when he wakes up at the Mortuary. They aren't blocked per se, but they are no doubt suffering from a problem which is not ordinary. And while you grew to understand there was something wrong with your memories in Torment's regular version, a change could be applied to my concept and have it go from there. The incarcerated Incarnations could give subtle hints. TNO could have one single flash, or memory as he woke up, hinting at his condition. Let's also not forget what changes could be made to the tatoos on his back as well.

 

I wasnt refering to your TTO example but the one of the indoctrinated child.

 

Ok.

 

They would still have a personality based on those surroundings in the same was someone who is raised by wolves has one based on theirs. It may not be one you would recognise and you would probably be talking about a fair bit of mental illness along the way as well. People who are isolated for long periods are pretty easy to look up.

 

Granted again - thats why i gave you the example of the construct.

 

Even with the example of the child, the personality would be paper thin. newc0253 pointed out he'd be a vegetable, but while i think this is probably an exacerbation of it, changes could be made to the prison so it would stimulate the child and possibly teach it to have common expectations of the outside world, and suitable reactions.

 

Exactly and the mental block is causing them to not remember or misremember. In the case of not being able to move someones legs it would depend on the cause. If the effect is a permenant one then they qualify. If its something dumb like their legs are tied together, well then their legs are tied together.

 

My point is that there is a difference between suffering amnesia - which usually entails a slow, and sometimes unsuccessful recovery - and a mental block which prohibits access to them, despite the similarity in both problems.

 

In the case of my example for PS:T, it didn't even need to be permanent - TTO's control over TNO's could possibly dissipate along the way.

 

Look how long your previous post is that should answer your question quite succintly.

 

I have no idea what part of what I wrote you're responding to. Possibly because you're not playing the "quote game"?

 

I'm not, your just not using my definition of the quotes game.

 

Oh that's right, so tell me the excu... er, the reason, then. What is the definition of your *[thunderclap]* GAME OF THE QUOTES *[thunderclap]*? Unless you're implying that quoting someone and answering them is a game, which it isn't.

 

Actually you didnt you just gave it another cause. There are many different ways to get amnesia. Blow to the head, traumatic event, electrical discharge, chemical abuse. But the end result is still the same.

 

The purpose changed, and so did the method and effect.

 

Thats hardly peronal, if you cant solve the route cause then it really dosnt matter what else you are saying. I'm assaulting your arguement not you.

 

Saying "The rest of what you say is never going to matter anyway" is an attack on what I say, and also me. If you wanted to attack the argument, you'd have said "The rest of what you say on this matter isn't relevant/doesn't matter".

 

Because it's interesting. If people want the level of detail that PST offers then it would appear they have to accept the contraints of having a pre generated character with some form of amnesia and a story based around said character recovering his memories.

 

I accept constrains. Sometimes they are even interesting. What i don't accept is what you hinted was an impossibility - character development outside strict story dictates - because exceptions exist, and contrary to a certain brain addled orc's comments, I pointed out examples of this.

 

In fact, you pointed it out again:

 

The more freedom you have to create your own character. The less the game is able to validate it on a personal level.

 

Explain Fallout, and Morrowind to me. Or even Fallout 2. You have:

 

>A universal reputation system.

>Reputations for the places you go to.

>Dialogue trackings for gender.

>Statistical and skill tracking for dialogues and situations.

>Karmic titles.

>Factions.

>Classless character system.

 

And your character can evolve in them, leaving it to the hands of the player. You have more "character freedom" than you have in Torment, and yet, the game is able to validate it on multiple personal levels. Something you believe can't qite be done.

 

What I would accept you saying would be that it would be increasingly hard, and perhaps not worth it, to have a system such as NWN or IWD2's character creation system, combined with the complexity of FO's system. That, i agree is hard to work with, and *perhaps* not worth the hassle for many people, including starting companies like Obsidian.

 

However, you don't have to validate everything that goes into character creation. If you take on a framework like D&D, there are stats which are touched very little. Con, Wis, Int. Most people also don't mind the races they're dealing with, aside obvious exceptions (Elves and Dwarves, Orcs and everyone else, etc). You also could do away with either Alignment or Reputation; choose which would matter less, and take the other one. Notice where I'm getting?

 

Saying that character development can, or should mostly occur outside of the story wasn't something that you or Gromnir should harp on, because it happens in other games.

 

Now there is nothing inherently wrong with that as long as there is a market for such games and the market is large enough to support them. Look at FF, it proves you dont even need character choice or player choice to make a successful game.

 

Never said otherwise. However, just because it's successful without those elements doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful with them. Also note, there is player choice on quite some levels (though much like BG2, they hardly matter).

 

I just find it kind of ironic that your criticising KOTOR for forcing you into a role and having poor combat when PST does both of those things in spades

 

I wasn't criticizing KoTOR at all <_< Now, you have to admit, *that* is ironic.

 

 

You create your character and based on character creation choices and outlooks it shuttles you to one beginning point and the game evolves from there

 

Possibly dangerous, in terms of not agreeing with outcomes. Not only that, it'd have to be well-balanced to avoid everyone choosing one option to benefit from the outcome. Perhaps a racial + alignment + skill choice, or something to that effect?

[AlanC9]

In PST you are a specific pre generated character. You either do nothing except follow the story. Or you create a background and have it constantly invalidated by the game.

But does knowing TNO's background -- or not knowing it -- actually tell us anything important about this incarnation? TNO has been just about everything over the course of his lives. You can play the current incarnation as being influenced by whatever you think should be at the top of his subconscious.

 

That's just as much freedom to define the character as you have with the Vault Dweller or the Bhallspawn

[Diogo Ribeiro]

^True. It doesn't matter much what he was; you have a chance to develop him after-

 

Incidentally, i know what SP's problem with the game is, and i totally accept his comment; however, contrary to what he says, character freedom is not strict to creating a character.