Best way to start an "Adventure"

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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".

 

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:

 

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.

 

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

See thats your problem right there. Your seeing what you want to see not what is said. You admit I have never said it (which I havnt) only that you think I have impied it. In other circumstances that sort of thing can lead to legal action you know.

 

Well a construct like you describe wouldnt have a past either. It wouldnt be responsible for anything because its just been created. So how would your construct have a past to unravel ? Which was the whole point of KOTOR and PST wasnt it? How would it have a personality to rediscover. How is it any different from just letting the player make up the character. Unless you have a particular urge to force them to be a non human construct or something.

 

Have you ever seen memento ? Very similiar to the tatoo concept only a bit more extreme. In either case its a way to try to piece together the puzzle of who you are each day. There are plenty of real life case studies of this. You dont even need to look to fiction.

 

In both PST and KOTOR who the main character was linked them very strongly to the plot in a way that a player created character could never be. I really dont see the point in going for the whole blank slate approach over the freeform character generation if that isnt going to mean anything during the game.

 

Well my previous post took 6 clicks of the scroll wheel from top to bottom. Yours (before this one) took 19 clicks. The more respond in quote form the longer the post gets. Its gets quite ridiculous.

 

Yes but the result (amnesia) was the same. Which pretty much comes to the conclusion that its the only way to do PST KOTOR style games.

 

Same difference <shrug> The point being that unless you can actually come up various ways of making blank slate characters to play story type games through. You are either going to have to accept that they will all be amnesiacs or its just not possible to do it.

 

I accept some contraints. Being a vaultdweller. Being a Child of Bhaal. What I dont accept is having the identity of my character chosen for me having its memory artificially removed and then guiding it around till it figures out who it is.

If its going to be a pre gen then I would much rather watch the story in the same way I would read a book.

 

Well Morrowind dosnt even have dialogue from your characters side of things. Morrowind also relies on the fact for the plot of you being the chosen one or some other such thing. If wandering around doing your own thing is someones idea of fun they will love it. Morrowind however is not a story based game.

 

Fallout has a very simple story go find a water chip before we all dehydrate. That pretty much sums it up. The character dosnt discover anything about themselves over the course of the game so its not story based either. No one the character meets outside of the vault knows them from before. Because all the events are in the now you dont need to remove the characters memories and the "baggage of being a vaultdweller can be shook off unlike being a child of Bhaal.

 

Fallout is probably my "ideal" balance between interactive game and character freedom.

 

Games like FO generally work better outside of a fantasy setting. Monsters are not generally inclined to talk as much as they are inclined to eat you. The one thing I disliked about both FO games is the NPCs were not as forceful as they should have been and were there more to be manipulated by the player rather than as individuals. J

 

If your talking about a recognised system then you have to abide by its rules or WOTC wont let you use them. Local reputation is far superior to alignment. But alignment is a tool that helps begining players know how their character should be acting. Each alignment comes with an explained ethos that the player can build on.

 

People do like making characters though everyone has their own favourite race and or class. Thats another advantage of FO everyone is human so no one worries about it. If you do a D&D game then people are upset because they cant be a dwarf or elf or whatever else they like.

 

Well in order to turn BG into PST you would first have to get rid of all the races except the chosen race. Then you have to choose a specific sex.Then you would need to create a specific Child of Bhaal. I have little doubt it would tell a better story if you did that. However while BG might not be as validating it does let people be what they want to be and I think you will find that to most people that matters a lot more. The imagine they create for their little imagined Dark Elf (or even if they are simply copying Drizzt) is stronger and more meaningful for them than any number of TNO's which someone else created.

 

Maybe it was someone else with your avatar. In any case if you havnt said that KOTOR is restrictive and the combat is bad you have my appology.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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

Your not really defining a character though your simply choosing the next pre defined page. The character has already been written to the n'th degree by someone else. Your simply playing one of the possible permitations. On the other hand the designer has had absolutely no influence on my character aside from my having to accept the destiny of being a Bhaal Spawn.

 

That it works isnt really in dispute. What is in dispute is unless you removed TNO's memories you wouldnt be able to play him in the first place. Quite what the game logic reason for him not continuining to lose his memory on death after you start the game Im not sure. But its a rather glaring inconsistancy wouldnt you say?

 

Both BG and FO allow far more character freedom as long as you are willing to accept the game not validating it directly.

 

KOTOR worked but if KOTOR II or any other game of that types comes along with an amnesiac PC its just going to be lame.

[djkillingspree]

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

Your not really defining a character though your simply choosing the next pre defined page. The character has already been written to the n'th degree by someone else. Your simply playing one of the possible permitations. On the other hand the designer has had absolutely no influence on my character aside from my having to accept the destiny of being a Bhaal Spawn.

 

That it works isnt really in dispute. What is in dispute is unless you removed TNO's memories you wouldnt be able to play him in the first place. Quite what the game logic reason for him not continuining to lose his memory on death after you start the game Im not sure. But its a rather glaring inconsistancy wouldnt you say?

To your first point, in reality BG offerred very little in terms of opportunities to define your character's morality in a complex and meaningful way. Generally, your choices in quests were always lawful good (I'll do this quest for you, for free!), neutral evil/chaotic neutral (I'll do this quest for you, but I want some cash!), or chaotic evil (quest? More like "I'll kill you".) Planescape let you make a variety of moral decisions and also did a very nice job defining the space between the role-player and the designer in terms of control of the character.

 

As to your second point, is isn't an inconsistancy at all. TNO only loses his memory when TTO kills him, either by proxy with the Shadows or in person. That is why there are only three incarnations. TTO has only got to TNO three times. It is specifically TTO's goal to make TNO forget, which is why he only blacks out when TTO kills him.

[Gorth]

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.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As to your second point, is isn't an inconsistancy at all.  TNO only loses his memory when TTO kills him, either by proxy with the Shadows or in person.  That is why there are only three incarnations.  TTO has only got to TNO three times.  It is specifically TTO's goal to make TNO forget, which is why he only blacks out when TTO kills him.

Yes but they gave those choices for one specific individual so the choices could be tailored to that one specific individual. BG on the other hand needed choices that could fit an almost infinite number of character concepts. Consequence being they are less individual. Call it the price of freedom if you like. In PST you surrender the freedom of making your own character in return for a game that is specifically for that one character. With the proviso that the character has its memory erased as thats the only way you would be able to make choices for a developed character.

 

I was killed lots of times by the shadows so many of them it almost locked out my system. Never lost my memory though.

[Darque]

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.

:D

[Diogo Ribeiro]

See thats your problem right there. Your seeing what you want to see not what is said. You admit I have never said it (which I havnt) only that you think I have impied it.

 

I apologize if you haven't said it; however' date=' i wouldn't mention this if i wasn't almost sure you had. I didn't even admit you didn't sayed it, i pointed out i seemed to recall something to that effect.

 

In other circumstances that sort of thing can lead to legal action you know.

 

If you were under police investigation you could also have a problem with not answering some of the things I asked you <_< Although,

 

Your seeing what you want to see not what is said.

 

usually describes you better than what it describes me.

 

Well a construct like you describe wouldnt have a past either. It wouldnt be responsible for anything because its just been created. So how would your construct have a past to unravel ? Which was the whole point of KOTOR and PST wasnt it? How would it have a personality to rediscover. How is it any different from just letting the player make up the character. Unless you have a particular urge to force them to be a non human construct or something.

 

You're never happy with what I give you, are you?

 

You can adjust it so the construct would orchestrate its own creation (the current one), and possibly its own master's disappearance (willingly or not); in the same way TNO was responsible for being in his current predicament. You could even have the construct become aware of the meanings of life and death, and he could be on the verge of being deactivated, so it opted to orchestrate its survival.

 

Have you ever seen memento ? Very similiar to the tatoo concept only a bit more extreme. In either case its a way to try to piece together the puzzle of who you are each day. There are plenty of real life case studies of this. You dont even need to look to fiction.

 

Yup, i saw Memento. Good movie. Gotta find me the DVD one of these days.

 

In both PST and KOTOR who the main character was linked them very strongly to the plot in a way that a player created character could never be. I really dont see the point in going for the whole blank slate approach over the freeform character generation if that isnt going to mean anything during the game.

 

Well my previous post took 6 clicks of the scroll wheel from top to bottom. Yours (before this one) took 19 clicks. The more respond in quote form the longer the post gets. Its gets quite ridiculous.

 

Your posts tend to be shorter not because you don't me quote by quote, but because you answers are shorter. <_<

 

I accept some contraints. Being a vaultdweller. Being a Child of Bhaal. What I dont accept is having the identity of my character chosen for me having its memory artificially removed and then guiding it around till it figures out who it is.

If its going to be a pre gen then I would much rather watch the story in the same way I would read a book.

 

You play Final Fantasies, don't you? FF7 and FF8 had a similar theme. Cloud was a clone with a fake past who went gaga, and the whole cast of FF8 had it so the Guardian Forces erased their memory over time (hence why none remembered the orphanage). Not an absolute memory loss, but close.

 

Fallout has a very simple story go find a water chip before we all dehydrate. That pretty much sums it up. The character dosnt discover anything about themselves over the course of the game (...)

 

But the point i was stressing was not (necessarily) about self-discovery in the game, it was about a character's possible development outside story bounds. Even in PST, the character grows and mutates outside of the story's chokepoints. Memory recoveries, statistical growth, alignment changing...

 

Games like FO generally work better outside of a fantasy setting. Monsters are not generally inclined to talk as much as they are inclined to eat you. The one thing I disliked about both FO games is the NPCs were not as forceful as they should have been and were there more to be manipulated by the player rather than as individuals.

 

I disliked them as well, mostly because of what you say. In the realm of the silent NPCs, i believe Torment (yet again) succeeded in this.

 

If your talking about a recognised system then you have to abide by its rules or WOTC wont let you use them. Local reputation is far superior to alignment. But alignment is a tool that helps begining players know how their character should be acting. Each alignment comes with an explained ethos that the player can build on.

 

I was only giving an example based on something people tend to be familiar with. I could've went with Arcanum's reputation slider, or even used Alignment and Reputation outside of their own D&D field.

 

People do like making characters though everyone has their own favourite race and or class. Thats another advantage of FO everyone is human so no one worries about it. If you do a D&D game then people are upset because they cant be a dwarf or elf or whatever else they like.

 

Agreed.

 

Well in order to turn BG into PST you would first have to get rid of all the races except the chosen race. Then you have to choose a specific sex.Then you would need to create a specific Child of Bhaal. I have little doubt it would tell a better story if you did that. However while BG might not be as validating it does let people be what they want to be and I think you will find that to most people that matters a lot more. The imagine they create for their little imagined Dark Elf (or even if they are simply copying Drizzt) is stronger and more meaningful for them than any number of TNO's which someone else created.

 

I don't recall ever saying the opposite of that, or disagreeing with it. I perfectly understand that, and why people prefer one way over the other. In fact, this part is important, methinks:

 

However while BG might not be as validating it does let people be what they want to be and I think you will find that to most people that matters a lot more.

 

This is important in two ways. One, because its true; second, because it would appear you understood one our main points about why people used PS:T as an example in terms of character freedom.

 

Although this preference is impressive when it comes to considerations on roleplaying, at least on the PC side. While creating your character is no doubt important, I strongly feel sorry for people who prefer that element over PS:T, because despite allowing for such a thing, BG comes nowhere near in roleplaying options. Its a pity.

 

Maybe it was someone else with your avatar. In any case if you havnt said that KOTOR is restrictive and the combat is bad you have my appology.

 

Alright, accepted.

 

 

Anybody up to writing a game' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Imagination wasn't a requirement for the particular problem at hand; a problem which apparently, if not an ultimate solution, seems to be pretty spot on for most of what was presented. But if you're volunteering, be my guest. Maybe you can tolerate Gromnir's dismissal of whatever you post.

[AlanC9]

Your not really defining a character though your simply choosing the next pre defined page. The character has already been written to the n'th degree by someone else. Your simply playing one of the possible permitations. On the other hand the designer has had absolutely no influence on my character aside from my having to accept the destiny of being a Bhaal Spawn.

 

That it works isnt really in dispute. What is in dispute is unless you removed TNO's memories you wouldnt be able to play him in the first place. Quite what the game logic reason for him not continuining to lose his memory on death after you start the game Im not sure. But its a rather glaring inconsistancy wouldnt you say?

 

Both BG and FO allow far more character freedom as long as you are willing to accept the game not validating it directly.

 

KOTOR worked but if KOTOR II or any other game of that types comes along with an amnesiac PC its just going to be lame.

Exactly what do you mean by "character freedom" ? It occurs to me that I really don't understand what you're trying to say - unless you're talking about the games' plots and I didn't think that was the subject of the thread.

 

The personality of the character is under your control in both games, as are the less important aspects such as class and stats. BG has slightly more control in the latter regard, since you can choose sex and the gameplay aspects of race (as opposed to being from a particular race's culture, which you can't choose), and you don't have to take any fighter levels.

 

Both games have a predefined background. TNO's protean background is somewhat freer here; his history means that any personality is possible for an incarnation, whereas a few character types don't really make any sense coming from Candlekeep.

 

I don't see how this adds up to greater freedom in BG.

 

As for the "inconsistency" in the PST memory loss wearing off, that is addressed in the game.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You're never happy with what I give you, are you?

 

You can adjust it so the construct would orchestrate its own creation (the current one), and possibly its own master's disappearance (willingly or not); in the same way TNO was responsible for being in his current predicament. You could even have the construct become aware of the meanings of life and death, and he could be on the verge of being deactivated, so it opted to orchestrate its survival.

 

You play Final Fantasies, don't you? FF7 and FF8 had a similar theme. Cloud was a clone with a fake past who went gaga, and the whole cast of FF8 had it so the Guardian Forces erased their memory over time (hence why none remembered the orphanage). Not an absolute memory loss, but close.

 

But the point i was stressing was not (necessarily) about self-discovery in the game, it was about a character's possible development outside story bounds. Even in PST, the character grows and mutates outside of the story's chokepoints. Memory recoveries, statistical growth, alignment changing..

 

I disliked them as well, mostly because of what you say. In the realm of the silent NPCs, i believe Torment (yet again) succeeded in this.

 

 

I don't recall ever saying the opposite of that, or disagreeing with it. I perfectly understand that, and why people prefer one way over the other. In fact, this part is important, methinks:

 

This is important in two ways. One, because its true; second, because it would appear you understood one our main points about why people used PS:T as an example in terms of character freedom.

 

Although this preference is impressive when it comes to considerations on roleplaying, at least on the PC side. While creating your character is no doubt important, I strongly feel sorry for people who prefer that element over PS:T, because despite allowing for such a thing, BG comes nowhere near in roleplaying options. Its a pity.

Actually the concept is pretty intruiging but I dont see how your getting the supposed advantages of a story based game from the contruct any more than if you just let the player create their own character.

 

In PST and KOTOR who you were , were very central to the game. I'm not quite seeing how you would get that from a construct because it wouldnt have previous relationships. I suppose it would depend how many people would want to play the role of a construct as the become more and more sentient. I've seen games where they are NPCs. TI0 in Grandia II springs to mind a humanoid warbot that learns to feel.

 

Yes but in the case of FF I'm not actually being asked to decide anything for them so the artificiality of always having to remove the protagonists memory for the sake of allowing the player to control them dosnt occur. Its done for story purposes rather than to artificially facilitate gameplay.

 

There wasnt any self discovery in fallout though was there ? The only revelation really was the one that you were not the first choice to go out there and they expected you to fail anyway.

 

It did. But the trick is could it have without actually knowing everything about TNO's relationship to the NPC's in advance. There were also far fewer NPCs in PST which is a limit on freedom. Fewer NPCs vs Less detailed NPCs.

 

Your basically asking them to make a huge sacrifice in hopes that you (the designer) will make a game they will connect with using a character you created for them. Its a very hit and miss affair though with the popularity of the Final Fantasy games in the time following PST it may well be a concept that is more readily embraced today.

 

Ive never really said otherwise only that the freedom there comes with a price and if the person has no interest in the character you have created for them then regardless of what freedoms you offer them in the game itself it wont matter. Because they will take one look at the character and say "nope not interested I wanted to be a Dwarf".

 

BG does , but its very much more personal and in the mind. How the character feels about what they are encountering.

 

Heres one of my personal experiences from KOTOR. I figured out who I was before the game did. I also figured out that Bastila must have been in on it all along. Because of this my character took to wandering off alone leaving everyone on the ship. He made a point of not talking to Bastila. Got into pod racing big time and generally became a master of procrastination. Its hard to explain but this just sort of happened. That was his way of coming to terms to with his crimes. Which were all the worse because he was glowing like a beacon.

 

In KOTOR there is no real game mechanic for the big revelation on a psychological level. The game didnt validate or reward it. Yet my character struggling to come to terms with his own past is what I remember most fondly about KOTOR. Its a high point of roleplaying moments but has nothing to do with the game directly only what the game has provided.

 

In PST that never happened because hey if you have been everything at some point then it must have balanced out overall.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Exactly what do you mean by "character freedom" ? It occurs to me that I really don't understand what you're trying to say - unless you're talking about the games' plots and I didn't think that was the subject of the thread..

 

Both games have a predefined background. TNO's protean background is somewhat freer here; his history means that any personality is possible for an incarnation, whereas a few character types don't really make any sense coming from Candlekeep.

 

I don't see how this adds up to greater freedom in BG.

 

As for the "inconsistency" in the PST memory loss wearing off, that is addressed in the game.

Freedom to create your own character not be given a pre generated character to play.

 

Yes but only PST has a pre defined character.

 

Thats very true about Candlekeep but thats one of the prices you pay for creating your own character and its easy to overlook as it has little impact on the game. On the other hand in PST you have the choice of one character that will be with you to the end as the game tells his story.

 

Well lets see.

 

Game A: You can play the story of a scarred human male with amnesia - Umm no dont think I want to play that role next please. You see it dosnt matter about any supposed depth beyond that if the player has no interest in the character. The same has been said about FFX too. "I'm not playing a boy band surfer reject who looks gay" So its not unique to PST by any means. Or more recently in FFX-2 A girl band !! shock horror no chance. Although a lot more probably played it for the costume change sequences

 

Game B: You can play a variety of races classes and both sexes as long as you accept you are a child of Bhaal.

 

Umm I've always wondered what its like to be a dwarf so game B sounds great.

Of course you later discover that the game is somewhat generic. But you get to play the character you imagine. Not one that someone else has created. Of course people who have roleplaying experience can easily fill in the blanks in games like BG and IWD and many prefer it that way anyway rather than having someone elses character concept.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Actually the concept is pretty intruiging but I dont see how your getting the supposed advantages of a story based game from the contruct any more than if you just let the player create their own character.

 

The advantage is the same you'd find when you compare BG over PS:T. That was your intention, after all, so that's pretty much why i devled into it. True, you can ask why would people want to control a construct. Its a perfectly valid question. Though, i'd answer that with another question: why would anyone want to control an amnesiac and scarred humanoid? No doubt controlling a humanoid is more interesting than controlling a construct, but where's the main difference? Would PS:T be very different if TNO was a construct? Also, I'm using the term construct to define something that is artificial, but not necessarily with an outward appearance like a Transformer. One of the girls in the Brotherl of Slating Intellectual Lusts was also a construct, yet had a human appearance.

 

In PST and KOTOR who you were , were very central to the game. I'm not quite seeing how you would get that from a construct because it wouldnt have previous relationships. I suppose it would depend how many people would want to play the role of a construct as the become more and more sentient. I've seen games where they are NPCs. TI0 in Grandia II springs to mind a humanoid warbot that learns to feel.

There's nothing preventing the construct from having past "lives". Its creator could have implanted several motivational CPUs to determine how he'd act out in given situations. Other people, or other constructs which had not had their memory erased, could very well remember him for what he did, despite the fact the construct wasn't exactly guilty of doing some things, per se. Who the creator was, what the construct did, and how it would affect him ,could all eventually be created on the same scale of intrincacies PS:T used, but differently to accomodate the construct however. The construct may even have more of an important role in the world than the creator itself, for all we know.

 

It did. But the trick is could it have without actually knowing everything about TNO's relationship to the NPC's in advance.

 

Thats a good question. Other than Annah, Nordom and Grace, no one else in the party was actually a stranger to TNO. I think that Ignus perhaps would suffer more as a character if it didn't had a past connection with TNO, but I believe that Dak'kon, Morte and Vhailor could stand on their own. Vhailor perhasps would suffer a bit as well.

 

There were also far fewer NPCs in PST which is a limit on freedom. Fewer NPCs vs Less detailed NPCs.

I see your point.

 

Your basically asking them to make a huge sacrifice in hopes that you (the designer) will make a game they will connect with using a character you created for them. Its a very hit and miss affair though with the popularity of the Final Fantasy games in the time following PST it may well be a concept that is more readily embraced today.

 

My point was more about exploring a given character, not havign a premade one. As far as roleplaying goes, I prefer creating my characters (that is, like i said, paramount to RPGs); I just prefer the roleplaying that PS:T gave me. It made my character feel more alive. Could just be that it was story driven, but i got the same feeling out of Fallout, not in the same way, but close. BG carried many problems to me as far as roleplaying goes, and its character creation unfortunately was not enough to compensate.

 

BG does , but its very much more personal and in the mind. How the character feels about what they are encountering.

 

I understand your point, although i failed to see it that way. It felt terribly empty.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The advantage is the same you'd find when you compare BG over PS:T. That was your intention, after all, so that's pretty much why i devled into it. True, you can ask why would people want to control a construct. Its a perfectly valid question. Though, i'd answer that with another question: why would anyone want to control an amnesiac and scarred humanoid? No doubt controlling a humanoid is more interesting than controlling a construct, but where's the main difference? Would PS:T be very different if TNO was a construct? Also, I'm using the term construct to define something that is artificial, but not necessarily with an outward appearance like a Transformer. One of the girls in the Brotherl of Slating Intellectual Lusts was also a construct, yet had a human appearance.

 

There's nothing preventing the construct from having past "lives". Its creator could have implanted several motivational CPUs to determine how he'd act out in given situations. Other people, or other constructs which had not had their memory erased, could very well remember him for what he did, despite the fact the construct wasn't exactly guilty of doing some things, per se. Who the creator was, what the construct did, and how it would affect him ,could all eventually be created on the same scale of intrincacies PS:T used, but differently to accomodate the construct however. The construct may even have more of an important role in the world than the creator itself, for all we know.

 

Thats a good question. Other than Annah, Nordom and Grace, no one else in the party was actually a stranger to TNO. I think that Ignus perhaps would suffer more as a character if it didn't had a past connection with TNO, but I believe that Dak'kon, Morte and Vhailor could stand on their own. Vhailor perhasps would suffer a bit as well

 

My point was more about exploring a given character, not havign a premade one. As far as roleplaying goes, I prefer creating my characters (that is, like i said, paramount to RPGs); I just prefer the roleplaying that PS:T gave me. It made my character feel more alive. Could just be that it was story driven, but i got the same feeling out of Fallout, not in the same way, but close. BG carried many problems to me as far as roleplaying goes, and its character creation unfortunately was not enough to compensate.

 

I understand your point, although i failed to see it that way. It felt terribly empty.

It's an interesting concept not sure how well received it would be or how you would actually translate it into a story.

 

Not sure TNO was driven by a fear of his own mortality or something wasnt he? Actually it reminds me a bit of Blade Runner you know with Rutgers character? An artifical lifeform coming to terms with its nature and its own mortality.

 

I'm not overly familiar with the story but didnt they all have some sort of link to TNO ? Or at least aware of who he was.

 

It would appear though that in order to have that experience you have to let the character be created by someone else. At least in a story based game. Not quite sure why more people havnt gone for the FO model really because it seems to be one that very few people dislike even if they didnt like the setting.

By basing events in the now you really dont need to deprive the player of character freedom beyond giving them a recognised starting point (like a vault).

 

Probably in the same way that I felt giving a pre generated character orders was a bit pointless. But this was way back before my GF got me into all those story based JRPGs and long before the explosion of popularity of the FF games. So its quite possible that a game like PST (only less weird) would be well received KOTOR was , though KOTOR hid its twist very well from the casual observer.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yes, AFAIR, TNO was driven by his fear of mortality hence why he sought out Ravel. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

As for the characters. Annah's only past connection i remember was that she just found his corpse in the Tenement of Thugs. Grace wasn't connected to him, however, and neither was Nordom. Morte and Dak'kon had past affiliations with him, Vhailor chased him, and Ignus was his pupil (and plaything, in a way).

 

Yes, FO seems to be a logical example to follow in CRPG design. It probably should be explored better by other companies.

[Gromnir]

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.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/language.php

 

genie, in particular, is a good read. girl was raised in near total isolation. was not a complete veggie, but she never was able to grasp basic grammar.

 

as to z...

 

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. simply say that such things is "subjective," is no more than noise... a flatulent for punctuation maybe?

 

is also not good to assume that Gromnir and sp is sharing same argument.. might be part of your problem.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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

 

Both of the games' stories compel the player to feel immersed in them, as they have the characteristics of allowing players to be a part of it, are centered around the character, and require the player to move the story forward on their own means (this is more true in Morrowind than it is in Fallout, althought Fallout has the character define itself better).

 

then yeah, you is spouting nonsense and do not deserve the effort we has spent on replies.

So you go ahead and make the claim that I wasn't answering you - when I was - because in your mind, I wasn't answering to other things you asked before? Whoa, for a minute I thought you were going to make sense, but thankfully I was wrong <_<

 

simply say that such things is "subjective," is no more than noise... a flatulent for punctuation maybe?

 

So tell me how finding something compelling is not subjective.

[AlanC9]

Forgot about the scars - good point there

 

So in PST you're not scarred, you have to be male, and you can play as a nonhuman in the trivial sense of having the AD&D stat modifications and special rules, though not in the more important sense of coming from a demi-human culture. (What does a character who grew up in Candlekeep know about being a dwarf? OK, he's short, but beyond that?)

 

The scars wouldn't have any significance to me in terms of the character. They are not the character. They are something that happened to the character.

 

Same thing for the amnesia. It doesn't change or define anything about the character; you could still be anyone. You have been anyone.

 

To describe TNO as a predefined character simply makes no sense to me. The game defines what he looks like, and some of what he's done. It doesn't define who he is.

 

Similarly, I thought the restrictive part in KotOR was the start, and not the amnesia plot. Being willing to join the Republic fleet says something about my character. Having been the Dark Lord Revan in a previous life doesn't say anything at all about him.

[newc0253]

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/language.php

 

genie, in particular, is a good read. girl was raised in near total isolation. was not a complete veggie, but she never was able to grasp basic grammar.

i had to dig out my copy of clifford geertz's interpretation of cultures to find the quote i was attempting to parrot:

 

Rather than culture acting only to supplement, develop, and extend organically-based capacities logically and genetically prior to it, it would seem to be ingredient to those capacities themselves. A cultureless human being would probably turn out to be not an intrinsically talented though unfulfilled ape, but a wholly mindless and consequently unworkable monstrosity. Like the cabbage it so much resembles, the Homo sapiens brain, having arisen within the framework of human culture, would not be viable outside of it

 

but nothing beats a case study, right?

 

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.

[AlanC9]

Can we avoid Morrowind spoilers in the thread, folks? If not, I'll have to recuse myself. I only got it running for the first time last week.

[newc0253]

Can we avoid Morrowind spoilers in the thread, folks? If not, I'll have to recuse myself. I only got it running for the first time last week.

 

sorry. i didn't realise calling morrowind dull was technically a spoiler, although bestheda would understandably want to keep its dullness a secret from potential customers.

[Darque]

I guess with some imagination it could be considered a spoiler..... ok... I'm reaching...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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.

I tend to agree. I really enjoyed the exploration for a time but I never bothered much with the story because by the time I got around to it my character was just to powerful for it and I got bored.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Forgot about the scars - good point there

 

So in PST you're not scarred, you have to be male, and you can play as a nonhuman in the trivial sense of having the AD&D stat modifications and special rules, though not in the more important sense of coming from a demi-human culture. (What does a character who grew up in Candlekeep know about being a dwarf? OK, he's short, but beyond that?)

 

The scars wouldn't have any significance to me in terms of the character. They are not the character. They are something that happened to the character.

 

Same thing for the amnesia. It doesn't change or define anything about the character; you could still be anyone. You have been anyone.

 

To describe TNO as a predefined character simply makes no sense to me. The game defines what he looks like, and some of what he's done. It doesn't define who he is.

 

Similarly, I thought the restrictive part in KotOR was the start, and not the amnesia plot. Being willing to join the Republic fleet says something about my character. Having been the Dark Lord Revan in a previous life doesn't say anything at all about him.

Put very simply if someone isnt interested in playing the character you have created for the game then they wont buy the game. Thats a pretty big gamble to take. In the case of PST one that didnt pay off.

 

On the other hand you give them the tools to create a character from their imagination and they will. All those millions of people playing BG and NWN must be seeing something in the ability to create their own characters that you are missing.

 

All games need a start point being a member of the republic fleet was nothing more than that.No different from having to start in a vault, or in Candlekeep. Inherently it wasnt restrictive. Where as the character being Darth Revan was because it would overwrite your previous character with a new identity.

Though in the case of KOTOR as I said above the character who Revan had become trying to come to terms with who he had been was rather a high point of the game for me.

 

A predefined character is one you dont create yourself. Tidus from FFX is a pre defined character. Yuna from FFX-2 is a pre defined character. TNO from PST is a pre defined character.

 

The only difference is that in TNO's case they yanked his memory for you to find in the course of the game but hes very much pre defined as who he is. And if you dont have any interest in the characrter then you have no interest in the game.

[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.

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.

Every choice doesn't need to be figured into the ending. The key though is whether the choice has a significant impact upon the game. How a choice earlier in the game affects an ending is one way of showing that. Fallout had this.

 

Yes, Torment had lots of choices for solving quests but you were still constrained by what the designers forced upon you, just like in BG.

 

No BG had the choice of gender, race and class affecting things outside of combat. Not all features of races or classes figure just in combat. Rogues and Bards are strongest outside of combat for instance. But like I and ShadowPaladin said you can fill in some of the blanks yourself. In reality, no CRPG is really a roleplaying game. You can never do everything that you can do in P&P. If anything games like Planescape Torment may provide you some additional choices compared to other games but you are still contrained by what the designers decide to implement as opposed to what you want to do. I don't recall that many decisions in PS:T affecting the game throughout the game. I got as far as the Fortress of Regrets on the Shadow Plane (I think that was the end game) but didn't complete it past that. Don't confuse good story with roleplaying. Adventure games have good stories but they are not roleplaying games.

 

No, a choice that affects how you play the game outside of a narrative is still role playing. Role playing isn't just how you approach the story or what the story provides to you. Those are constraints placed upon you by the game's designers so technically it's not even roleplaying. if you are willing to fill in the blanks yourself as to your character, some might argue that BG had more role playing. as an example of filling in the blanks, take a look at Icewind Dale 2 Adventuring Companies forum at Interplay. Everybody comes up with an idea of a party they want to play and provide a background and why particular people (which means race, class and gender) are in their party. Is that not roleplaying?

 

Anyway, I only brought up that aspect of the game to see the responses I would get. Compared to PS:T, BG had better character creation and didn't restrict you in the character you created. The race and class you choose in BG affects your gameplay. Your gameplay and not just combat or narrative is roleplaying. I am surprised people would think that character creation in BG wasn't a significant difference between the two games. How else do you customize a character to be what you want to roleplay as?

[djkillingspree]

Forgot about the scars - good point there

 

So in PST you're not scarred, you have to be male, and you can play as a nonhuman in the trivial sense of having the AD&D stat modifications and special rules, though not in the more important sense of coming from a demi-human culture. (What does a character who grew up in Candlekeep know about being a dwarf? OK, he's short, but beyond that?)

 

The scars wouldn't have any significance to me in terms of the character. They are not the character. They are something that happened to the character.

 

Same thing for the amnesia. It doesn't change or define anything about the character; you could still be anyone. You have been anyone.

 

To describe TNO as a predefined character simply makes no sense to me. The game defines what he looks like, and some of what he's done. It doesn't define who he is.

 

Similarly, I thought the restrictive part in KotOR was the start, and not the amnesia plot. Being willing to join the Republic fleet says something about my character. Having been the Dark Lord Revan in a previous life doesn't say anything at all about him.

Put very simply if someone isnt interested in playing the character you have created for the game then they wont buy the game. Thats a pretty big gamble to take. In the case of PST one that didnt pay off.

 

On the other hand you give them the tools to create a character from their imagination and they will. All those millions of people playing BG and NWN must be seeing something in the ability to create their own characters that you are missing.

 

All games need a start point being a member of the republic fleet was nothing more than that.No different from having to start in a vault, or in Candlekeep. Inherently it wasnt restrictive. Where as the character being Darth Revan was because it would overwrite your previous character with a new identity.

Though in the case of KOTOR as I said above the character who Revan had become trying to come to terms with who he had been was rather a high point of the game for me.

 

A predefined character is one you dont create yourself. Tidus from FFX is a pre defined character. Yuna from FFX-2 is a pre defined character. TNO from PST is a pre defined character.

 

The only difference is that in TNO's case they yanked his memory for you to find in the course of the game but hes very much pre defined as who he is. And if you dont have any interest in the characrter then you have no interest in the game.

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.

[Iolo]

Forgot about the scars - good point there

 

So in PST you're not scarred, you have to be male, and you can play as a nonhuman in the trivial sense of having the AD&D stat modifications and special rules, though not in the more important sense of coming from a demi-human culture. (What does a character who grew up in Candlekeep know about being a dwarf? OK, he's short, but beyond that?)

 

The scars wouldn't have any significance to me in terms of the character. They are not the character. They are something that happened to the character.

 

Same thing for the amnesia. It doesn't change or define anything about the character; you could still be anyone. You have been anyone.

 

To describe TNO as a predefined character simply makes no sense to me. The game defines what he looks like, and some of what he's done. It doesn't define who he is.

 

Similarly, I thought the restrictive part in KotOR was the start, and not the amnesia plot. Being willing to join the Republic fleet says something about my character. Having been the Dark Lord Revan in a previous life doesn't say anything at all about him.

Put very simply if someone isnt interested in playing the character you have created for the game then they wont buy the game. Thats a pretty big gamble to take. In the case of PST one that didnt pay off.

 

On the other hand you give them the tools to create a character from their imagination and they will. All those millions of people playing BG and NWN must be seeing something in the ability to create their own characters that you are missing.

 

All games need a start point being a member of the republic fleet was nothing more than that.No different from having to start in a vault, or in Candlekeep. Inherently it wasnt restrictive. Where as the character being Darth Revan was because it would overwrite your previous character with a new identity.

Though in the case of KOTOR as I said above the character who Revan had become trying to come to terms with who he had been was rather a high point of the game for me.

 

A predefined character is one you dont create yourself. Tidus from FFX is a pre defined character. Yuna from FFX-2 is a pre defined character. TNO from PST is a pre defined character.

 

The only difference is that in TNO's case they yanked his memory for you to find in the course of the game but hes very much pre defined as who he is. And if you dont have any interest in the characrter then you have no interest in the game.

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.

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. The choice of playing a Wizard or a Fighter or a Bard or a Ranger or Paladin or a Cleric is still roleplaying. You don't need to have everything spoonfed to you in order for it to be roleplaying. Doom isn't a good example because you have no choice in how to define your character or evolve it as time goes on whereas BG and PS:T both had that.