How is this for an NWN2 campaign concept?

[Kaftan Barlast]

As you may know, I study game development and design at University and we are well into our second-year projects. Me and some other fellows are putting together an NWN2 campaign and me and my authoritarian and fascistic Dane of a teacher would like to hear your opinions about the concept (There is still alot of work to be done before we can give you the first presentable part)

 

 

 

cutscene as you are greeted by the imperial guard in the palace gardens

 

 

We are producing a single-player campaign centered around political intrigue and set in a medieval paraphrase of ancient rome, where the player is the ruler of this ancient empire. The key concept is creating a gameplay experience centered around power simulation by decision-making and social interaction, as opposed to traditional strategy games where this is done by manipulating statistics. Every action will have consequences, which affect the story through the NPC's around you.

The campaign is aimed towards a mature audience and does away with traditional themes and morality. The world is cruel as is the people, and well-intended actions may bring disastrous consequences, encouraging the player to think twice before he acts.

 

We are using an influence system like that of the original campaign and KoTOR2, but this system is primarily based around factions, not individuals. To be successful, you must make strategic political decisions to balance each faction against the others. This doesnt necessarily require a gentle hand, fear is often a very effective way to keep your rule stable. As mentioned before, traditional morals and notions about good and evil have no place here.

 

The campaign is meant to appeal to roleplayers, but also to the instinctual desire for power every human has. Or maybe just for those who would play just for the pleasure of doing something and getting a reaction in response.

 

The whole idea is an NWN-ification of an old idea for game I had, called

[Gfted1]

I think thats a great concept and I very much like the idea of doing away with "morality", especially in this gameworld you propose.

 

BTW, the linked pic produces a "certificate error" in IE7.

[Sand]

I really like the concept and I hope it is a success. When you are ready for a need of beta testers I'll gladly volunteer for it.

[Llyranor]

You guys are missing the point of the thread, which is to ensure that his teacher kills him.

 

In any case, the concept is nice, so go for it. The screenshot is nice too, just like you Again, though, everything lies in the execution of said concept. Needs more Deekin getting killed, though. Or you getting killed. That works too. I like your teacher.

[Sand]

You guys are missing the point of the thread, which is to ensure that his teacher kills him.

 

In any case, the concept is nice, so go for it. The screenshot is nice too, just like you Again, though, everything lies in the execution of said concept. Needs more Deekin getting killed, though. Or you getting killed. That works too. I like your teacher.

 

You are a very violent.

[Big Bottom]

Yes, you are a very violent.

 

The concept sounds excellent to me and I look forward to playing it.

[Tigranes]

What kind of comments do you want us to make, Kaftan? Because I assume you're not just looking for "hey, that sounds nice"? That might be all you get from such a short abstract.

 

One of the interesting things is how you will prompt the player to do certain things if he/she is a ruler and not subject to any higher authority. For example, what happens to the traditional RPG economic model? Or does the emperor have to negotiate with the treasury to finance things, which then shows in the environment (i.e. better defences, new farms)? Will there be any combat at all (i.e. assassins)?

 

Whatever the answers to those questisons it sounds as if the primary mode of gameplay is through dialogue, and in other words decision-making and people-persuading: it will be difficult to represent the complexity of effects, counter-effects, follow-up effects and so forth that come from your actions and words, but the basis is there to create that mechanism in the toolset. It would also be nice to see something that has more powerful consequences than in the OC's stronghold.

 

Is there an overarching 'story' or 'situation' in which you are thrust? i.e. will the player be dealing with succession issues, or the legitimacy of his own ascension? An outside invasion, or an inside rebellion? A specific configuration of warring factions? New technologies , beliefs or disasters that threaten the social fabric? Or something different than the kind of things we get in 'standard' history?

 

It does sound interesting though, I'd love to play it.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I was a bit rushed yesterday, I should have included a set of questions to go with this. Ill fix that now instead

[*]What potential risks and pitfalls do you see in the actual execution of this concept?

[*]What is the "feature" or idea you're attracted to the most?

[*]Is there any design clich

Edited May 4, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Llyranor]

[*]What potential risks and pitfalls do you see in the actual execution of this concept?

[*]What is the "feature" or idea you're attracted to the most?

[*]Is there any design clich

[Tigranes]

Well I've thought about this line of RPGs for a while now, so I do have some comments.

• Risks/Pitfalls: As I said above, the presence of well-expressed consequences is make-or-break to this concept. The character is placed in a much more 'insulated' environment where, especially on a low-resource undertaking such as this, they are more often 'told' what is going on or has happened, rather than shown. It can devolve into a meaningless number-game if the consequences aren't very significant; also if the actions are too easily reversible (Fail? Try Again!); and if options are too set across any linear scale (Good/Evil, Smart/Stupid, etc). All this appears to make things too complex, of course, so my suggestion would be to prepare a series of small 'events' such as riots about a particular issue or whatnot (kinda NationStateslike, no?) then have the player act as a reactive force.
   
  
• Attractive Feature: It's obviously different from any RPG or Strategy game out there and promises a more sophisticated level of philosophical, political, social commentary. This can be seen as a detraction, but also an attraction.
   
  
• Design Cliche: Probably the nature of the agenda the ruler must come across. For example, if they were too staple - i.e. "A corrupt official is oppressing the people, but he brings money into our coffers!", is not likely to excite the players even if the concept is unique for a video game. Your hint of moral complexity promises different, but it is crucial I think to deliver. I think your situation - that of a King newly instated after a war - will ensure, however, that the situation is quite different. It will be very important to capitalise on this. You say you will use a lot of historically inspired examples; it will be great then to study them and implement not only the complexities of the situations, but a new point of view - not in the view of the historian or the reader of that history, but of a participant, subject to the thoughts and ideas of the time. In fact, I really want to stress the fact that so many games, so many pieces of any literature, seek to impose the epistemology of our own time on the past or in an alternate setting. Let's say we have a spy in the Kingdom, but we're not completely sure if he's a Spy. The two basic responses are kill him, or just imprison him. In our society, even if the former happens, it would be frowned upon; and in literature or games, the people who advocate the former will be given 'evil' or 'Machiavellian' imageries - cold, hard, and so forth. But perhaps in THIS world, people who advocate the latter are seen as too wishy-washy and are simply being childish, and the game does not attempt to put the 'killer' camp in a bad light. I am running away with this tangent and it is very ambitious in idea, but heh, there you go. Feel free to ignore this part.
   
  
• Custom Content: Firstly, the setting. Everything about it currently evokes Romanness: if so, the High Fantasy / Medieval look of NWN2 will need some modfiying, otherwise it will become a rather unflattering pastiche of the visual. I am personally curious as to what made you choose a non-medieval Kingdom setting when such a problem presents itself, but you will have your reasons, I am sure. As a casual player, with the kind of presentation you make (the logo and all), I would actually expect lots of Romanesque, or pseudo-Romanesque, elements in all visual parts - meaning a fair amount of custom content, especially in terms of music, fonts and interface as well (these things are too often left out in favour of new buildings or models). If not I would be rather struck by its amateurism.
   
  
• Roleplaying Content: A loaded question isn't it, coming here to ask? I envision there being a huge amoutn of roleplaying because of the dialogue / decision-driven nature of the game. If I may go on a tangent though, the impression I am getting at the moment is that the game will not be 100% King on a throne talking to people agian and again and again; I get the impression that the King can also take a gander down the streets, listen to the people, get attacked by assassins; personally lead squadrons in an attack or defence of the Kingdom; and if resource allows, even visit an outpost or nearby village personally. Hell, even get kidnapped at one point. meaning there woudl be a mix of more traditional RPG gameplay - combat, stealth, exploration, movement - as well as this decision-making stuff. This may not be what you mean at all, but that's how I understand it - perhaps because that's what I think would be good.
  

Edited May 4, 2007 by Tigranes