Forced Positioning: The bane of squishies

[Lephys]

Well, either the PC picks from a selecton of plans OR the party NPC's give the player "ideas" in a row and the PC selects one. Eitehr way, due to the limits of the conversation, if such things are handled trough conversations you are restricted.

Not only is the a very clear limit on the numbe of solution the developers would provide/write, but you'll also see them all presented.

 

You could of course have SOMe plans spelled out, other possible to enact "manually". The solution could be insted of detailed plans, more of a vauge directions:

NPC a: we should find a way to negate his attack

NPC b: I personally feel we should find him before he can find us..or avoid the courtyard completely

NPC c: why avoid him? If they can manipulate and paly dirty, so can we!

 

This kinda gives you possible general direction.

Yeah, it most certainly depends on a lot of factors. And you're right that you're restricted, but nothing says you have to be restricted beyond what's reasonable, you know? It would depend on the situation, and the factors involved, but, in the "We found out an assassin is going to try and take us out in the courtyard" scenario, perhaps you don't have time to run around town and do anything, because you're due to meet the guy in the courtyard in like 10 minutes. At that point, your party is going to try and come up with a plan.

 

Also, when I'm talking about restriction moderation, what I mean is that they don't have to come up with the entire second-by-second plan all the way through to the assassin's death. Take the scripted choice of casting missile protection (again, I agree that it's not really a big deal, because the likelihood that you'll somehow mistime the spell or something is EXTREMELY slim, but, at the same time, it's kind of a "Why not" thing, since the situation is not dynamic in this example, so there's absolutely no benefit to manually timing the spell, anyway. *shrug*... It's hard to argue specifically for either method, really): That's just the plan to set up for something that's going to take place during dialogue. The point of that is how to set up a dynamic situation, i.e. the assassin taking his shot, going "What the HELL?!", and giving away his position (with the shot, and possibly the surprised reaction), then probably trying to flee. From that point, it doesn't just keep scripting it. You didn't pick "And when he runs off, you tackle him, Steve. And Suzy, you cast Animate Rope to tie him up. And then we'll take him to the chancellor at approximately noon," etc.

 

Also, like I said, the plan wouldn't automatically be a good one. I mean, the "Okay, we'll just proceed as if we DON'T know he's here, and see if we can't find him once he fails to assassinate me" plan is a pretty simple setup, and you're right that it would probably only work if you didn't really have much other choice (because of time constraints, etc.). Anywho, there might be various options, some of which provide a MUCH worse setup for actually catching the assassin. I mean, you can't just post people all over the roof (if you want to catch him), or the assassin will see them and say "that's weird," and abort before you even do anything. Maybe you have the option of posting people on the roof, though as the "we're gonna make sure this guy doesn't get away with this, in case we're wrong about his target," etc.

 

Basically, I'm envisioning that, ideally, your information is dependent upon how well you've collected info, what you've previously done up to this point, and how well you can figure out details of the assassin's plan based on what you know. Your characters don't just automatically figure everything out. But, they would probably provide suggestions for what you should attempt to do, overall. In other words, the plan is more "Let's just go ahead with this courtyard event and try to use the element of surprise to catch this guy," or "let's just alert the guards to call off the courtyard event and to be on the lookout for an assassin," or maybe "Let's try to figure out more details of this plan, if we can."

 

Maybe if you warn the guards, it turns out one of them was in on it, and the target was actually Lord Blargle, and he's simply assassinated back in his bedchamber that night because of how you approached the situation. Maybe the assassin's using an enchanted arrow that can actually ignore your protection from missiles spell. These are things your characters don't automatically know. So, they come up with good ideas (because you can't just literally do infinite things... there are only so many plans that are feasible).

 

That's all I'm trying to get at. I realize I'm dealing with a rather crude example, but it's the best I can do without sitting down and hashing out all the specific details for a quest scenario I'd actually want to see in the game, complete with backstory and character specifics for everyone involved, THEN trying to figure out how best to address the scripted/dialogue choices in the matter. The example is only meant to make "I think sometimes you should get to pick plans in dialogue" actually make sense in context, rather than just being a vague thing floating around in my head.

 

If the entire quests is designed so there is only one solution - then it's fine.

 

But if for example, I want to track down who hired the assasin or try to secretly bribe the assasin or something else, that is far harder to pull off in your system.

Agreed. I'm trying to get rid of the "ifs" for now, with a very specific scenario (I realize I wasn't quite specific enough, though, and that's my bad), because... well, we can only really design a specific choice set for a given scenario with given factors. If the factors are different, then it is a different scenario and would need a different choice set. I do apologize for not being the best at hashing out my examples as much as I need to. You're bringing up very valid concerns/points.

 

You can't handle everything trough dialogue. It becomes far too clunky.

 

Not to mention that if we follow the above train of thought, the player should really have minimal input on everything.

Wouldn't the character in combat automaitcly pick the best weapon for the job and the best positons and targets? OR smart conversation options?

No no, you can't. You're right. I didn't mean it to be a train of thought to be followed. I merely meant that, since some things are obviously handled by the characters and not the player, I believe this has a place in dialogue/scripted choices. Ehh, to put it simply, I'd love to be able to just attack a random person, for whatever reason I choose (completely manual control, non-scripted), but I would expect my party to express disbelief, and/or attempt to disarm me and check on the person, etc. This translates into the courtyard assassin scenario as, if I just manually run around in circles until the assassin strikes, I don't see that as a valid enough plan for my party not to say "Uhmm... you go be an idiot... I'm gonna try to do my best here without your input," and simply telling the guards or something.

 

In other words, I'm all for restriction in what the player is allowed to make happen, when there is a decent enough set of things that are COMPLETELY and utterly infeasible. Basically, you can choose to do nothing, or to do something really stupid, and your party just isn't going to go along with it. So, a minimum-feasibility outcome is still going to occur. Granted, this could be different in different situations, as we've agreed. If an assassin's striking in the next 15 minutes in a courtyard, and the life of Lord Blargle is important to the story and your party, then they're not going to just shrug it off and go shopping while he gets assassinated. BUT, if there's some time-sensitive situation in a town, and you have to go off somewhere else to do something imperative, but you expect to be back at that town in time to handle the time-sensitive problem, your party might be much more likely to do things that inadvertently cause you to be too late. They might voice their concern as time passes, suggesting that you get back very soon, but they're not going to just throw all their stuff down and flee back to that town. (Who knows... one of them might. Maybe it's their hometown, or the situation is particularly personal for them in another way. *shrug*)

 

 

Off topic:

 

A Lannister always pays his debts.

 

For everyone else, there's Mastercard.

 

Had me burst out laughing while reading this thread.

 

Glad I could help you meet your daily laughter quota, ^_^

Edited May 15, 2013 by Lephys

[J.E. Sawyer]

Not that this is a solution to the problems of forced positioning, but I always liked how the battles started in Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are set number of valid placement tiles for your party members.  You can put them wherever you want in those tiles, but you can't throw them all over the map.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Would disabling "event" trigger areas while sneaking or invisible be a solution to your problem?

 

Not that this is a solution to the problems of forced positioning, but I always liked how the battles started in Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are set number of valid placement tiles for your party members.  You can put them wherever you want in those tiles, but you can't throw them all over the map.

I enjoyed that feature as well. Could PE allow custom positioning in a similar manner?

Edited May 16, 2013 by KaineParker

[Hormalakh]

Not that this is a solution to the problems of forced positioning, but I always liked how the battles started in Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are set number of valid placement tiles for your party members.  You can put them wherever you want in those tiles, but you can't throw them all over the map.

 

That's a good idea. I think the biggest issue for me during the IE games was that the positioning of the characters was always dependant on the linear arrangement of your party, i.e. top character was always the leader. It made the limited formation choices and its irrelevance to positioning pretty useless.

 

I would recommend allowing players to set a particular formation up and "lock it" and then also allow us to choose who the "leader/speaker" for the party is, like we do in King of dragon Pass (you have one clan member in the ring chosen as your spokesperson). That way, you've locked your formation and you've locked your speaker. When you have an in-game "cutscene", keep your formation locked and allow the player just to pick the angular rotation of that formation and your speaker has already been pre-selected to be whoever you chose, regardless of where they're placed.

 

So basically the developer has already chosen the x,y of the party location, but the formation is pre-selected/created and its angular rotation is chosen by the player during the initial set-up for the cutscenes.

 

You can limit "cheating" by only allowing formations to be saved only within a limited area. For example, any formation can only be "locked" if all players are within a 2.5"x2.5" or whatever area. You drop down a blue box centered on the speaker/leader on the floor when a player wants to "lock" a formation. If all his party members are not in the blue box, the box turns red/yellow/with a big X in the middle (whatever you choose) telling the players that the formation isn't possible because party members are spread out too far apart.

I hope that makes sense...

Edited May 16, 2013 by Hormalakh

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Not that this is a solution to the problems of forced positioning, but I always liked how the battles started in Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are set number of valid placement tiles for your party members.  You can put them wherever you want in those tiles, but you can't throw them all over the map.

 

That's a good idea. I think the biggest issue for me during the IE games was that the positioning of the characters was always dependant on the linear arrangement of your party, i.e. top character was always the leader. It made the limited formation choices and its irrelevance to positioning pretty useless.

 

I would recommend allowing players to set a particular formation up and "lock it" and then also allow us to choose who the "leader/speaker" for the party is, like we do in King of dragon Pass (you have one clan member in the ring chosen as your spokesperson). That way, you've locked your formation and you've locked your speaker. When you have an in-game "cutscene", keep your formation locked and allow the player just to pick the angular rotation of that formation and your speaker has already been pre-selected to be whoever you chose, regardless of where they're placed.

 

So basically the developer has already chosen the x,y of the party location, but the formation is pre-selected/created and its angular rotation is chosen by the player during the initial set-up for the cutscenes.

 

You can limit "cheating" by only allowing formations to be saved only within a limited area. For example, any formation can only be "locked" if all players are within a 2.5"x2.5" or whatever area. You drop down a blue box centered on the speaker/leader on the floor when a player wants to "lock" a formation. If all his party members are not in the blue box, the box turns red/yellow/with a big X in the middle (whatever you choose) telling the players that the formation isn't possible because party members are spread out too far apart.

I hope that makes sense...

 

I'd prefer having a custom option that allowed you to create a formation of your choosing through a menu. I picture the it being something like a circle where you can paint where each party member will stand.

[Lephys]

Not that this is a solution to the problems of forced positioning, but I always liked how the battles started in Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are set number of valid placement tiles for your party members.  You can put them wherever you want in those tiles, but you can't throw them all over the map.

Yes! That was pretty great. And, that COULD actually work for, say, random encounters that load from some kind of world map travel screen (if such a thing/implementation is in the game). I mean, formation's got us covered pretty much everywhere else (@Hormalakh: methinks he's already provided us some nice tidbits on the niceness of formation function in P:E... I'd have to go find it, which I'm unable to do at the moment). But, if your party formation isn't represented in World Map travel, then you'd essentially "load into battle," very similarly to how you did in FF Tactics. You could have some fun with that. Ambushed? You get fewer potential placements for your characters, and you can't change their facing.

 

And I know you said that's not really a solution for forced positioning, but it is kind of along the lines of what I was getting at with my giant wall of text up there (I need to learn to type less). Basically, I think if you're going to be preparing for a dynamic encounter that springs forth from a "static", scripted event/scenario (like walking into a "cutscene" dialogue event when you know it's a trap), I think it's not a bad idea to provide a limited number of preparation options. Either that, or make the whole thing SO unbelievably reactive that the assassin literally changes his plans according to the exact manual placement of all your party members before entering the find-the-assassin ambush. Which seems like an awfully time-and-resource-consuming thing.

 

At least that was a short wall of text that can easily be hopped over with minimal effort,

Edited May 16, 2013 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

 

 

Not that this is a solution to the problems of forced positioning, but I always liked how the battles started in Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are set number of valid placement tiles for your party members.  You can put them wherever you want in those tiles, but you can't throw them all over the map.

 

That's a good idea. I think the biggest issue for me during the IE games was that the positioning of the characters was always dependant on the linear arrangement of your party, i.e. top character was always the leader. It made the limited formation choices and its irrelevance to positioning pretty useless.

 

I would recommend allowing players to set a particular formation up and "lock it" and then also allow us to choose who the "leader/speaker" for the party is, like we do in King of dragon Pass (you have one clan member in the ring chosen as your spokesperson). That way, you've locked your formation and you've locked your speaker. When you have an in-game "cutscene", keep your formation locked and allow the player just to pick the angular rotation of that formation and your speaker has already been pre-selected to be whoever you chose, regardless of where they're placed.

 

So basically the developer has already chosen the x,y of the party location, but the formation is pre-selected/created and its angular rotation is chosen by the player during the initial set-up for the cutscenes.

 

You can limit "cheating" by only allowing formations to be saved only within a limited area. For example, any formation can only be "locked" if all players are within a 2.5"x2.5" or whatever area. You drop down a blue box centered on the speaker/leader on the floor when a player wants to "lock" a formation. If all his party members are not in the blue box, the box turns red/yellow/with a big X in the middle (whatever you choose) telling the players that the formation isn't possible because party members are spread out too far apart.

I hope that makes sense...

 

I'd prefer having a custom option that allowed you to create a formation of your choosing through a menu. I picture the it being something like a circle where you can paint where each party member will stand.

 

Yeah that works too. It doesn't matter how they implement it. I was thinking like how AOE2 did it. you place each party member in a spot and then you click the "hold formation" button or whatever. the main idea is more important.

[TrashMan]

@Lephys:

 

I understand where you're going, and ultimatively, a quest executed like that can feel quite deep.

But at the same time a more organic approach feels more rewarding...more "free".

 

In liue of your earlier assesment that the player is the party, then the party should already now what he is planning to do, ergo deciding on a course of action trough dialogue is not necessary.

Off course, it comes at a tradeoff or reduced NPC interaction, as NPC can only react to what you do in that case.

 

Let's say you and the party discuss possible plans. A convo triggering quest solution already sets you on the path.

 

But let's say you make a conversation and don't actually get to agree to any plan - you just listen to them.

Then if you cast protection from missiels on yourself and walk out of the courtyard, the NPC could still react to that. You could change course as long as you didn't get too far. Heck, you can COMBINE solution.

 

Don a brestplate under your cloth, cast magic shield, have your own archer on the second floor waiting with bow and arrow, hiding in shadow (or invisible) for counter-sniping. Notify the guard, but tell them to feign ignorance and prepare.

The possibilities are many.

[Lephys]

@Lephys:

 

I understand where you're going, and ultimatively, a quest executed like that can feel quite deep.

But at the same time a more organic approach feels more rewarding...more "free".

 

In liue of your earlier assesment that the player is the party, then the party should already now what he is planning to do, ergo deciding on a course of action trough dialogue is not necessary.

Off course, it comes at a tradeoff or reduced NPC interaction, as NPC can only react to what you do in that case.

 

Let's say you and the party discuss possible plans. A convo triggering quest solution already sets you on the path.

 

But let's say you make a conversation and don't actually get to agree to any plan - you just listen to them.

Then if you cast protection from missiels on yourself and walk out of the courtyard, the NPC could still react to that. You could change course as long as you didn't get too far. Heck, you can COMBINE solution.

 

Don a brestplate under your cloth, cast magic shield, have your own archer on the second floor waiting with bow and arrow, hiding in shadow (or invisible) for counter-sniping. Notify the guard, but tell them to feign ignorance and prepare.

The possibilities are many.

Well, I wasn't super clear about the player "being" the party (since that wasn't the main topic of the thread at the time), but, you're right. I don't think you're the party, always and completely, like you are (almost) with the main character (there are a few specific little details/aspects of actions and decisions that you don't control directly, but that's beside the point, here). Only that, because of the nature of the tactical combat, the player kind of "jacks into" the minds of the entire party and fully controls their actions/decisions just as much as he does for the main character, temporarily and within certain confines (usually just combat, and other things like equipment selection, etc.).

 

Annnnywho. I'm not trying to argue against you there. Just trying to clarify my cloudy, cloudy words and takes on things.

 

But, back to the more relevant stuff, you're absolutely right, and I hadn't really thought about it specifically that way. That's exactly how I'm thinking of it; the whole "combining plans" thing. I'm not in favor of deciding the future. That's why I tried to separate things into dynamic and static situations. Basically, to me, "there's going to be an assassination attempt at the courtyard" is a static situation. There's not going to NOT be one, or the assassin isn't going to change his mind and just hug everyone or something. It's not as if just anything could be attempted at the courtyard (or even at any location). If that were the case, it wouldn't fit the "let's come up with a decently specific plan" design. Or... vice versa: that design wouldn't fit that context.

 

But, yes, what I'm thinking is that, with such a specific, "static" situation, you might well come up with one of a handful of feasible plans for it. But, it's like battle. What is it they say? Something like "Even the best battle plans are only good until the first arrow falls"? I don't remember the wording. Basically, adaptation is key. So, you're basically deciding how to approach the situation. Not how to handle it, if that makes sense. I think all the handling and adaptation should be done manually, by the player. I agree that that's much more free, and I don't like it when there are PERFECTLY feasible measures to be taken in a situation, yet the game forces you into a scripted dialogue choice-tree and fails to provide such choices. I can't think of a good example of that at the moment, but I KNOW I've seen it while playing previous cRPGs, here and there.

 

Here's basically what led me to think of the whole example, and why I thought some scripted planning might be a good idea, in the first place:

 

I was thinking "Okay, if we're going to do this ambush thing, then I'm going to waltz out and talk to this lord in the courtyard. So, that's probably gonna be scripted, so I can't just jog around and cast things and react, mid-dialogue, because it seems like people would know something was up if I did that during this formal/public courtyard meeting. And the attempt is probably going to be made mid-dialogue, while we're 'distracted' (or so the assassin believes). So, how do I know when I should cast the spell, so that people don't see me cast it (maybe the assassin's watching the courtyard right now), and when I should/can position people? It seems like an awful lot of details and manual control that doesn't really benefit me, when, for the characters, having decided 'We'll have someone up in the balcony, and someone in the corner, and someone at the back entrance, and I'll cast Missile Protection in secret before entering the courtyard,' etc. would be ultra easy. But, for the player, the game would have to convey an awful lot of info to me that's already ridiculously simple knowledge to the characters."

 

So, I dunno if that makes a lot of sense to any brain but my weird one, but it just seems like, in that particular situation, it's pure convolution to have to manually set up a waiting plan. Seems like it would be completely fine for any and all dynamic reactions to take place, once the situation actually changes (the attempt is made, something occurs that you've been waiting to react to, etc.).

 

Also, I just want to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying that the exact placement of the characters should be left up to dialogue options. Just the general idea. It just seems like good reactivity on the characters' parts to say "wait, why don't we have anyone upstairs? If this guy is on the roof, he's probably going to be fleeing from a high point." And it seems like an awful lot of trouble to have the game detect purely your manual placement of people, and have characters react to your flawed plan. It seems like that type of group communication and planning might best be left to dialogue and scripting.

 

*shrug*

 

To be clear, though, I think the level of detail in your plan should be optional. If you decide "we're not even gonna try and catch this guy, because I'm worried we won't be able to, so we're just gonna warn the guards to clear out the courtyard," then you should be able to do that. Or if you decide "You know what, we're just gonna see what happens, and react to it." You can decide that, too. Really, the whole point is reactivity. It's hard for your Ranger to say "this is preposterous... I'm going upstairs to keep an eye out" if he doesn't know that you've vocally communicated that you don't want anyone upstairs keeping an eye out. I don't see a team of people just being cool with there being absolutely no plan whatsoever. And I don't think "Yes, okay, everyone make preparations!" is going to fly. Everyone would just make their own random preparations, unbeknownst to the rest of the team, and things would go terribly.

 

 

(I sincerely apologize for the text wall. I realize that a normal person could convey what I'm trying to convey with probably 1/3 of the words, but I play with the hand I'm dealt. 8P)

Edited May 16, 2013 by Lephys

[TrashMan]

 

 

I was thinking "Okay, if we're going to do this ambush thing, then I'm going to waltz out and talk to this lord in the courtyard. So, that's probably gonna be scripted, so I can't just jog around and cast things and react, mid-dialogue, because it seems like people would know something was up if I did that during this formal/public courtyard meeting. And the attempt is probably going to be made mid-dialogue, while we're 'distracted' (or so the assassin believes). So, how do I know when I should cast the spell, so that people don't see me cast it (maybe the assassin's watching the courtyard right now), and when I should/can position people? It seems like an awful lot of details and manual control that doesn't really benefit me, when, for the characters, having decided 'We'll have someone up in the balcony, and someone in the corner, and someone at the back entrance, and I'll cast Missile Protection in secret before entering the courtyard,' etc. would be ultra easy. But, for the player, the game would have to convey an awful lot of info to me that's already ridiculously simple knowledge to the characters."

 

Either it's awfull lot of details or it's not. It can't be simple and complex at the same time.... or can it?

 

Having all of those things decided trough dialogue is limiting.

After all you have ot decide who wil lstand where and do what. That's a LOT of lines for even a simple plan. And all of that the developers have to script. It's just a pain in the a** that in the end leaves you with less options.

 

You want to place one guy on the balcony? Who exactly? Where exacty? Should he attack immediately if he sees or wait? You're going to end up having to limit thing - like for example positions.

 

The game can recognize if you have a spell active. The game can also check your armor rating. Like it needs to be super-scripted? Have the assasin fire a powerfull arrow and auto-roll a 20. No cutscene, no nothing. If you have heavy armor or magic shield, you should be fine.

Or maybe the assains notices something is wrong and backs down, the quest takes another route.

 

Again, the team doesn't actually have to comment on everything.

You seemed to be hanged up on the idea that the team should discuss everything and come up with a plan Oceans 11 style.

 

While something like that certanly might be "cinematic", it is also limiting.

[Lephys]

Either it's awfull lot of details or it's not. It can't be simple and complex at the same time.... or can it?

 

Having all of those things decided trough dialogue is limiting.

After all you have ot decide who wil lstand where and do what. That's a LOT of lines for even a simple plan. And all of that the developers have to script. It's just a pain in the a** that in the end leaves you with less options.

 

You want to place one guy on the balcony? Who exactly? Where exacty? Should he attack immediately if he sees or wait? You're going to end up having to limit thing - like for example positions.

The exact same thing can be simple for the character, and complex for the player. So... yes. It's an awful lot of detail that the character already knows, to first relay to the player, THEN have the player process it, decide what to have the character do, THEN send it straight back to the character. That's why things are handled by Perception checks and such. Your character knows better than you do the details of his surroundings. So, while your plan might be "hide up here where you could see someone coming but couldn't be seen yourself," you might attempt to do that with manual positioning, but fail, simply because TO YOU it appears that your character is in a good hiding position in the room, while your character actually knows, from his own perspective, that someone coming from such-and-such direction would easily spot him.

 

I'm not saying "You should never ever have to position your characters for strategic purposes." Only that there are certain details in certain circumstances that should simply be left up to your character.

 

Who do you send up there? You get to pick that. There's absolutely no difference between "Mandwin... you go up on the balcony and remain hidden, and keep an eye out for the assassin," and manually selecting Mandwin and moving him up onto the balcony, except for my aforementioned potential for the player's failure to find a suitable hiding spot upstairs, even though Mandwin has a skill of 100 in Being Stealthy and Architecture Lore and Ambush Strategy. You could pop up a crash course for ambush strategy, there, in the game, for the player to learn all about it. OR you could trust that your character can find a good spot to set up to simply watch an area.

 

Should he attack immediately if he sees? You get to control that. Once the assassin's first shot goes down, consider things in your full control. I'd imagine that, so long as you can see where the assassin is, combat is initiated. Maybe you get the choice, at the moment of spotting, to either call out for help ("I've got him! He's up here!") or just-plain attack. If you call out for help, you can still attack, but you give away your position. However, the rest of your party can now reinforce you. If you attack, they don't know where you are, but you have the advantage of surprise. Hell, you could even come up with some kind of signal. How would you do THAT if you didn't plan it? "I'll make this particular bird call, and the rest of my party will just MAGICALLY know that it's me telling them that I see the assassin, even though we didn't plan any of this, because the magical floating player in the sky just DECIDED that we all know it! 8D." So, THAT'S a decision best left to the player, since it's not a given.

 

"Do I stand in a really good hiding spot so the fleeing assassin won't see me but I can see him if he comes this way, or do I stand in a stupid hiding spot where I'll be seen and won't be able to keep an eye on much?" IS a given. There's no need for the player to manually bungle the set up of an ambush by professional soldier/mercenary/"adventurer" types.

 

Also, without the ability to manually set everyone up wherever you so please, you can't play through the section, find out where the assassin actually turns out to be, then re-load your game from before, position EVERYONE in a big cluster around the corner from where the assassin's going to enter the scene, and have them all "coincidentally" dogpile him when he rounds the corner. Nor can you plan to catch the guy, and just have everyone stand around in the courtyard with their weapons ready, in plain sight. Your team would wonder "Umm... isn't he going to see us? Maybe we should... I dunno... go hide or something?" With purely manual control, they would just do it.

 

The game can recognize if you have a spell active. The game can also check your armor rating. Like it needs to be super-scripted? Have the assasin fire a powerfull arrow and auto-roll a 20. No cutscene, no nothing. If you have heavy armor or magic shield, you should be fine.

Or maybe the assains notices something is wrong and backs down, the quest takes another route.

Oh, yeah... 'cause the assassin's just gonna make an abstracted combat standard attack against Lord Blargle's breastplate with his crossbow bolt, rather than putting one straight in his neck or eye-socket that kills him within seconds no matter how good his AC is. Besides, the assassin can SEE heavy armor. Don't you think he'd react to that? He can't SEE a protection from missiles spell, so he wouldn't be alerted to your knowledge of his plan. Plus, what the hell does scripting have to do with the game performing an armor check? You think it can't perform a check on your armor rating during a dialogue or scripted event? What do you think "talking to a guy in a courtyard and waiting on an unseen assassin" is? Active combat? It is, itself, a scripted event.

 

There are only so many ways this thing can go down. You either warn everyone ahead of time and call off the meeting, or you don't. If you don't, but you know about the assassin, then you plan to catch him with the element of surprise. If you plan to catch him with the element of surprise, then you either care about stopping the bolt (without alerting him to your presence), or you simply intend to use Lord Blargle as bait and don't care whether or not he lives or dies, as long as you can find the source of the bolt. Etc.

 

And yes, your team is going to want to plan this. They don't just follow you around like servants and stare at their feet. When you say "There's an assassin that wants to kill Lord Blargle," they're going to have feelings regarding what to do about that. They're going to want to know what the plan is. It's not friggin' Ocean's 11. It's nowhere NEAR that elaborate. It's called "don't just arbitrarily do things and hope they produce a coherent result." So, yes, if your team says "Well, we've gotta stop the assassin!", and you say "You're right. Mandwin, you run over there and stare at a wall! Vellis, you run to town and buy me some eggs! The rest of us will knit sweaters!," they're going to call BS. So, yes, completely manual positioning/preparation is feasible as long as it remains within the feasibility threshold of what people understand the general plan to be. So, why not limit your choices, and still provide choices? What good is including the entire non-feasible part of the choice spectrum? Does that make the game better? Watching my characters agree with and carry out ridiculous and silly commands and strategies?

 

In active combat, you're given FULL control over your entire party, so as to facilitate the best timing and execution of active, adaptive tactics to the current dynamic situation that is combat. A side-effect is that you can, essentially, override any and all effective actions/behaviors of your characters, as you could simply be perpetually "waiting to time an attack." So, I can't really say "combat shouldn't let you fight poorly!". However, you can only fight so poorly. You can't literally hurl your characters onto enemy weapons. You can simply not active-combat the enemies and therefore succumb to incoming damage.

 

There's absolutely no need to have that level of control in static situations outside of active combat. It does no good. That's why Search checks don't generally rely upon the manual facing of your character, but rather the area around them. It's understood that, even if you, the player, don't know specifically where to make that character focus to find hidden things, that character understands which directions in which to look and what parts of walls and such to investigate, within the searched area. Just as "someone should probably watch each of the exits to this building" would be understood when coming up with a "let's catch this assassin" strategy.

 

You keep saying "that's limiting" as if it's purely a bad thing. Finite hitpoints are limiting, and yet we embrace them. Character progression is limiting. Having my party member object to my random killing of innocents is limiting. Dialogue trees are limiting. What if I want to tell the person they have nice boots? That's not in there.

 

Limitation is to be moderated, not eradicated. And I don't see how limited versus unlimited people-placements in a "we're just trying to make sure someone doesn't escape this area without us seeing them" situation is in any way preposterous or bad.

 

Also, if you don't like the example we're rolling with right now, because you think it's a bad one or something, then, by all means, feel free to propose a different one. But, it was simply an example to illustrate my ideas, not the other way around. I feel a little silly having to defend my ideas against things not specified in my original example. Obviously, a courtyard assassination could be implemented in OODLES of different ways. But, I'm not talking about all the possible ways in which to implement a courtyard assassination scenario. I'm talking about how it might be nice to handle a specific implementation of such a scenario.

 

If you'd like to talk about all the possibilities of implementing that scenario, that's totally fine. I'd love to do that. But, separate from my "it seems like this might be a good way to handle this particular implementation" segment, please.

[Karkarov]

This is not a big deal.

1: Obsidian just needs to design forced encounters in an intelligent way so that you can't "stealth up to the mage".  It really isn't that hard.  Also.. no position switching. 

2: Party spokesman should be the main character.  It is your story, your party... forget player agency why would you want someone else to tell you what to do in a single player game?  If you want your party spokesman to be a bad ass debonaire bard well... you better make your character a bad ass debonaire bard I guess.

 

3: Why did you send your rogue that far out alone?  You check a room, all clear, move everyone up, hit the next room.  If you leave your party miles away and the rogue on their own then you should get what you deserve... which is a dead rogue.  If it is forced conversation and everyone but the rogue is "more than 20 meters away" or whatever catch there is to conversations just let the rogue respond with some canned dialog based either on character (for named NPC) or class based if a custom character.

 

4: Now that I mention it... remember.  Some people won't even use pre made NPC's.  You can create your own custom party in this game if you want so there may be little to no dialog at all for non main characters in those types of parties.

[Lephys]

1: Obsidian just needs to design forced encounters in an intelligent way so that you can't "stealth up to the mage".  It really isn't that hard.

I do not understand. Are you suggesting it should be impossible to stealth your way to close-range with Mages? Under what circumstances, exactly? I am confuzzled.

[TrashMan]

 

The exact same thing can be simple for the character, and complex for the player. So... yes. It's an awful lot of detail that the character already knows, to first relay to the player, THEN have the player process it, decide what to have the character do, THEN send it straight back to the character. That's why things are handled by Perception checks and such. Your character knows better than you do the details of his surroundings. So, while your plan might be "hide up here where you could see someone coming but couldn't be seen yourself," you might attempt to do that with manual positioning, but fail, simply because TO YOU it appears that your character is in a good hiding position in the room, while your character actually knows, from his own perspective, that someone coming from such-and-such direction would easily spot him.

 

I'm not saying "You should never ever have to position your characters for strategic purposes." Only that there are certain details in certain circumstances that should simply be left up to your character.

 

But you ARE the cahracter. And fixed points takes away player freedom. After all, how do you know exactly from where the assain will come?

What if you want your ranger to wait behind the second column to the left, and not the 3rd one on the right? It might not be the right one? I'll risk it. And frankly I should be able to tell if my character is hidden or not. If I can't tell that then the game fails at providing sufficient information.

 

Leaving things up to your character takes it away form the player. It's as simple as that. The only thing the player CAN affect is strategic/tactical decisions (since character stats are used for everything)..I really dont' look forward to those being reduced.

 

 

 

 

Who do you send up there? You get to pick that. There's absolutely no difference between "Mandwin... you go up on the balcony and remain hidden, and keep an eye out for the assassin," and manually selecting Mandwin and moving him up onto the balcony, except for my aforementioned potential for the player's failure to find a suitable hiding spot upstairs, even though Mandwin has a skill of 100 in Being Stealthy and Architecture Lore and Ambush Strategy. You could pop up a crash course for ambush strategy, there, in the game, for the player to learn all about it. OR you could trust that your character can find a good spot to set up to simply watch an area.

 

Actually there is a big difference.

One is scripted and has to be put in dialogue, the other is organic.

One is more resource intensive and limiting, the other is not.

Simply put, the develoeprs have a limited time and limited amount of dialogue slots - thus they will have to limit the tactics and solutions if situations like this are handeled mostly trough dialogue.

 

 

 

"Do I stand in a really good hiding spot so the fleeing assassin won't see me but I can see him if he comes this way, or do I stand in a stupid hiding spot where I'll be seen and won't be able to keep an eye on much?" IS a given. There's no need for the player to manually bungle the set up of an ambush by professional soldier/mercenary/"adventurer" types.

 

If you think you're incompetent enough to bungle it, then that's your problem.

I for one have faith in my tactical abilities.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, without the ability to manually set everyone up wherever you so please, you can't play through the section, find out where the assassin actually turns out to be, then re-load your game from before, position EVERYONE in a big cluster around the corner from where the assassin's going to enter the scene, and have them all "coincidentally" dogpile him when he rounds the corner. Nor can you plan to catch the guy, and just have everyone stand around in the courtyard with their weapons ready, in plain sight. Your team would wonder "Umm... isn't he going to see us? Maybe we should... I dunno... go hide or something?" With purely manual control, they would just do it.

 

Load/save abuse is now a concern? Since when?

How is that different from finding the optimal conversation response, then re-loading?

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah... 'cause the assassin's just gonna make an abstracted combat standard attack against Lord Blargle's breastplate with his crossbow bolt, rather than putting one straight in his neck or eye-socket that kills him within seconds no matter how good his AC is. Besides, the assassin can SEE heavy armor. Don't you think he'd react to that? He can't SEE a protection from missiles spell, so he wouldn't be alerted to your knowledge of his plan. Plus, what the hell does scripting have to do with the game performing an armor check? You think it can't perform a check on your armor rating during a dialogue or scripted event? What do you think "talking to a guy in a courtyard and waiting on an unseen assassin" is? Active combat? It is, itself, a scripted event.

 

a) perfect accuracy? A crossbow isn't a sniper rifle, so it's more likely the bolt would be poisond and he would be shootign for center mass.

 

b) A true assain would probably just poison his food to begin with, or kill him in a more subtle way.

 

c) No, you can't see a breatsplate if it's hidden beneath your robes.

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, your team is going to want to plan this. They don't just follow you around like servants and stare at their feet. When you say "There's an assassin that wants to kill Lord Blargle," they're going to have feelings regarding what to do about that. They're going to want to know what the plan is. It's not friggin' Ocean's 11. It's nowhere NEAR that elaborate. It's called "don't just arbitrarily do things and hope they produce a coherent result." So, yes, if your team says "Well, we've gotta stop the assassin!", and you say "You're right. Mandwin, you run over there and stare at a wall! Vellis, you run to town and buy me some eggs! The rest of us will knit sweaters!," they're going to call BS. So, yes, completely manual positioning/preparation is feasible as long as it remains within the feasibility threshold of what people understand the general plan to be. So, why not limit your choices, and still provide choices? What good is including the entire non-feasible part of the choice spectrum? Does that make the game better? Watching my characters agree with and carry out ridiculous and silly commands and strategies?

 

Freedom comes with the option to do redicolous things. If it breaks your suspension of disbelief DON'T DO STUPID THINGS. It's simple.

It also comes with the option to do very smart things the developers didn't forsee.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying "that's limiting" as if it's purely a bad thing. Finite hitpoints are limiting, and yet we embrace them. Character progression is limiting. Having my party member object to my random killing of innocents is limiting. Dialogue trees are limiting. What if I want to tell the person they have nice boots? That's not in there.

 

Limitation is to be moderated, not eradicated. And I don't see how limited versus unlimited people-placements in a "we're just trying to make sure someone doesn't escape this area without us seeing them" situation is in any way preposterous or bad.

 

Limiting my options on how to handle a problem/quest is bad. Period.

There is no if's or buts' about this.

I don't consider a few extra lines from my party memebers to be an acceptable tradeoff for the loss of agency.

[Randomthom]

I think this thread has become slightly derailed onto a very specific and only slightly-related conversation between two people who are (constructively) disagreeing with each other!

 

The issue, as I see it, is the game taking away choice, particularly tactical decisions the player makes e.g. sneaking ahead. Usually forcing the player into direct confrontation, often without much room for tactical manoeuvre, hence the title, bane of squishies.

 

I'd love to hear some of the developer's thoughts regarding how conversations and combat will interact, with particular reference to stealth and forced repositioning. Mr Sawyer has already graced us with his presence, perhaps this could be a section of one of the PE weekly updates...

[Lephys]

What if you want your ranger to wait behind the second column to the left, and not the 3rd one on the right? It might not be the right one? I'll risk it. And frankly I should be able to tell if my character is hidden or not. If I can't tell that then the game fails at providing sufficient information.

What kind of area are you expecting to be trying to keep an eye on? An MC Escher labyrinth? "What if your guy needed to be 7 feet to the left, and facing east, instead of 5 feet to the right and facing west?" If you're keeping an eye out for a fleeing assassin, he's either going to come from here and run through the room/corridor to there, or he's gonna come from there and run through to here. And it's not like you're going to miss the guy because of the room placement. Unless, of course, you leave things up to manual placement and botch it. But, it's not like the assassin fleeing through the area is just a scripted thing. If he comes through any area where you've placed a watcher, combat ensues and you employ whatever tactics you'd like to stop him. If he takes a route you don't have people on (regardless of whether or not they're manually placed or script-choice-placed, your party can only cover so much space), then you're never even going to get to do anything about him.

 

If I say "Hmm, we should really probably watch those stairs, in case he comes that way," I don't see how I benefit from having to manually set a person up such that they can definitely see those stairs, but also remain hidden. If you're so certain you're going to get it right with your manual placement, then what benefit do you gain from manual placement? "Well I'm definitely not going to screw it up. Jeez, it's such a simple task, u_u... But, man, I want to have to use the right tactics to make sure my character can see the stairs but is also hidden from view of the other entrances to that space!"

 

Seems a bit silly to me. *shrug*

 

Leaving things up to your character takes it away form the player. It's as simple as that. The only thing the player CAN affect is strategic/tactical decisions (since character stats are used for everything)..I really dont' look forward to those being reduced.

The keywords there being "strategic/tactical decisions." What's the strategic decision here? "I can only post people at SO many locations to watch for the assassin, so where do I place them and where do I not?". What's not a strategic decision here? "Which of the 50 different individual 5-inch spots do I position my character upon so that he can watch the entrances to this room?". The only dynamic there is "Did you place this person where they could actually witness an assassin flee through this space, AND where they are out-of-view of such a person, or did you not?" Why should you be able to stand 4 inches too far to the left of a marble column, so that your elbow can just be seen by a person entering the room? If your watching an entrance, but also hiding from view from that entrance's direction, should you also be in full manual control of active peeking around corners and columns, and be required to time such a thing? Maybe if you do it at the wrong time, the assassin spots you and just runs off before you even ever see him. That'd be a fun mechanic. Strategic decisions, FTW! 8D

 

Actually there is a big difference.

One is scripted and has to be put in dialogue, the other is organic.

One is more resource intensive and limiting, the other is not.

Simply put, the develoeprs have a limited time and limited amount of dialogue slots - thus they will have to limit the tactics and solutions if situations like this are handeled mostly trough dialogue.

You also have a limited number of placement options. You can place a watcher on what turns out to be the assassin's path, or you can place a watcher on what turns out to not-be the assassin's path. The assassin only has a finite number of path options.

 

I don't know how to make it much clearer. Strategy/tactics depends upon dynamically affected factors. That's why it happens in combat. In combat, what you do affects what your foes do, and vice versa. You can't strategically happen to be standing in a room that an assassin runs through, or tactically cast Protection From Missiles before walking into a courtyard.

 

You're arguing for tactics against no opposing factors. Is anything ever going to prevent you from standing in a room and watching the entrances to that room, or from casting a spell before then engaging in a conversation during which you know you'll need the spell active? Nope.

 

a) perfect accuracy? A crossbow isn't a sniper rifle, so it's more likely the bolt would be poisond and he would be shootign for center mass.

 

b) A true assain would probably just poison his food to begin with, or kill him in a more subtle way.

 

c) No, you can't see a breatsplate if it's hidden beneath your robes.

A true assassin probably doesn't go aiming at people's bulky mass of robes and not wondering why their so bulky. Also, I take it anyone who's ever hunted with a crossbow (or just a bow, even), since they lacked a sniper rifle, simply aimed for the deer's general center of mass, and just HOPED they hit it somewhere that prevented it from running 3 miles before dying where they couldn't find it, or just living because they just hit its muscle?

 

Are we now assuming that this assassin, trying to kill someone in a courtyard, must reside within the tallest tower of the nearest neighboring city, rather than within about 50 yards of the target?

 

That's not even counting the possibility that he could use a Bolt of True Striking or something.

 

But, you're right. He'd probably just poison a bolt, and fire away. Better yet, he'd probably just toss a big poison gas bomb into the courtyard, and hope that everyone breathes it in. That's why he's the highly sought after assassin. Maybe he'd even use a big stick of dynamite. There's no chance of an antidote for explosion sickness.

 

Limiting my options on how to handle a problem/quest is bad. Period.

There is no if's or buts' about this.

I don't consider a few extra lines from my party memebers to be an acceptable tradeoff for the loss of agency.

Your options for how to handle a problem/quest are already limited, prior to the coding of the game. Want to get into that building? You can either go through the window, or the door, or the chimney. You can't just opt to phase through the wall.

 

In the event that an understandably scripted scenario is underway (like an elaborate dialogue-with-a-guy-while-an-assassination-attempt-occurs, 8D), I don't see a reason not to incorporate an already-limited list of options into that same scripted event, as well.

 

If you fail to even see what I'm saying after all that, then it's because you're choosing not to.

[TrashMan]

What kind of area are you expecting to be trying to keep an eye on? An MC Escher labyrinth? "What if your guy needed to be 7 feet to the left, and facing east, instead of 5 feet to the right and facing west?" If you're keeping an eye out for a fleeing assassin, he's either going to come from here and run through the room/corridor to there, or he's gonna come from there and run through to here. And it's not like you're going to miss the guy because of the room placement. Unless, of course, you leave things up to manual placement and botch it. But, it's not like the assassin fleeing through the area is just a scripted thing. If he comes through any area where you've placed a watcher, combat ensues and you employ whatever tactics you'd like to stop him. If he takes a route you don't have people on (regardless of whether or not they're manually placed or script-choice-placed, your party can only cover so much space), then you're never even going to get to do anything about him.

 

If I say "Hmm, we should really probably watch those stairs, in case he comes that way," I don't see how I benefit from having to manually set a person up such that they can definitely see those stairs, but also remain hidden. If you're so certain you're going to get it right with your manual placement, then what benefit do you gain from manual placement? "Well I'm definitely not going to screw it up. Jeez, it's such a simple task, u_u... But, man, I want to have to use the right tactics to make sure my character can see the stairs but is also hidden from view of the other entrances to that space!"

 

Seems a bit silly to me. *shrug*

 

What seems silly to me is the notion that the assasin will come exactly trough the door you predict and will be waring a clearly recognizable garb, with the big letters "I'm an assasin" branded on his forehead.

 

No, if an assasin were to come he will probably look like any other guest. There would be little point in attempting to hide near the entrance when you don't know how he looks like.

Le'ts suppose random NPC's are enetering hte room. And the assin is randomy assigned to be one of them. Then it doesn't matter if your who team is camping the door, since you don't know who he is and combat doesn't auto-start.

 

"There is only a limited number of places where your people can stand" - well, that depends on the room, doesn't it?

 

And to answer your previous post - I'm 99% sure I won't screw up any given battle that isn't a boss-battle. Should we then automate that?

 

So insted of clicking on Bob and clicking on the spot, you basicly want to navigate tough a conversation:

PNPC: "So, how do we go about it Boss? Who goes where"

PC: Select BOB

PNPC Bob: "yeah boss, where do you want me?"

PC: Select balcony.

PNPC: "Ok boss. On my way."

 

*repeat for every party NPC*

 

I fail to see an improvement

 

 

 

 

You also have a limited number of placement options. You can place a watcher on what turns out to be the assassin's path, or you can place a watcher on what turns out to not-be the assassin's path. The assassin only has a finite number of path options.

 

2 is finite and 10 is finite, therefore they are equal?

And is the assasin uses pathing algorith, then his route is mellable depending on other NPC's mingling in the area.

If you simplify everything enough, all things end up "no brainers".

 

 

 

 

But, you're right. He'd probably just poison a bolt, and fire away. Better yet, he'd probably just toss a big poison gas bomb into the courtyard, and hope that everyone breathes it in. That's why he's the highly sought after assassin. Maybe he'd even use a big stick of dynamite. There's no chance of an antidote for explosion sickness.

[/qutoe]

 

The best assasins are those you suspect last and never detect. So tossing dinamite and poisons would be a mark of a bad asssasin.

 

 

A true assassin probably doesn't go aiming at people's bulky mass of robes and not wondering why their so bulky.

 

A breastplate bulky? If you wear a robe over it, you'll just look like someone who gained a few pounds. Unless the assasin is deeply familiar with your diet and body weight, there really should be nothing tipping him off. You'd be just another fat patron.

 

 

If you fail to even see what I'm saying after all that, then it's because you're choosing not to.

 

Well, I'm asserting it is you who choses not to see what I am saying.

Edited May 21, 2013 by TrashMan

[Lephys]

What seems silly to me is the notion that the assasin will come exactly trough the door you predict and will be waring a clearly recognizable garb, with the big letters "I'm an assasin" branded on his forehead.

A notion that seems equally silly to me. It's a good thing no one backed such a notion.

 

What seems even sillier than, though, is the notion that, if you have no idea who the assassin is or what he looks like, you will somehow have the advantage via strategic, manual tactics and placement. "Man, it's a good thing I had my Warrior stand just to the left of the door, instead of just to the right of the door, because now I can even BETTER stop the guy who may-or-may-not come through that door at all, and whose appearance I know nothing of! 8D"

 

I'm not seeing anything suggesting the usefulness of extreme, tactical detail in this situation, which is precisely part of my point. If there WERE a reason to need tactical precision in a "pick some places to keep an eye out, because we have no idea where this assassin will be" situation, then I'd be worried about it.

 

"There is only a limited number of places where your people can stand" - well, that depends on the room, doesn't it?

Sorry. That's absolutely true. The room might be the entire universe, so there might, in fact, be infinite possibilities for placement. u_u

 

And to answer your previous post - I'm 99% sure I won't screw up any given battle that isn't a boss-battle. Should we then automate that?

 

So insted of clicking on Bob and clicking on the spot, you basicly want to navigate tough a conversation:

PNPC: "So, how do we go about it Boss? Who goes where"

PC: Select BOB

PNPC Bob: "yeah boss, where do you want me?"

PC: Select balcony.

PNPC: "Ok boss. On my way."

 

*repeat for every party NPC*

 

I fail to see an improvement

Heyyyy, I thought I was the one who was supposed to use the Latin-named argument fallacies! You're stealing my job, man!

 

You say "I need to have EXTREME tactical precision for this extremely menial plan," and I point out why, in a very specific instance, you actually don't benefit from the tactical precision. So, you now ask "Oh, so everything should just be scripted?!"

 

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying, apparently. You would know better then I would, it would seem. -___-

 

If something has a reason to be scripted and doesn't really benefit from full tactical control, then CLEARLY that leads us to "All things should be scripted and will never benefit from full tactical control." I'm glad you picked up on that without me having to explain it. That would've been troublesome. u_u

 

 

2 is finite and 10 is finite, therefore they are equal?

And is the assasin uses pathing algorith, then his route is mellable depending on other NPC's mingling in the area.

If you simplify everything enough, all things end up "no brainers".

Well... it seems you called me out on that one, too, as I quite specifically stated that I wanted no more than 2 placement options, u_u. I mean, if we had 7,352 placement options, infinite would STILL be better, and super beneficial. It's not like there's a feasibility threshold or anything. Silly me.

 

The best assasins are those you suspect last and never detect. So tossing dinamite and poisons would be a mark of a bad asssasin.

Ignoring the fact that I was being sarcastic, who's left to notice you when the whole courtyard's dead and/or exploded? . Hell, you can place the dynamite at a point of architecturally strategic advantage, and just light a 2 minute fuse, and be LONG gone by the time it goes off, and the entire courtyard is buried in rubble. Seems better than "A poisoned bolt! Clearly someone fired this bolt seconds ago, and is within a respectable range of here! START SEARCHING!"

 

A breastplate bulky? If you wear a robe over it, you'll just look like someone who gained a few pounds. Unless the assasin is deeply familiar with your diet and body weight, there really should be nothing tipping him off. You'd be just another fat patron.

A) Why are you wearing a robe? If you're the head priest of the town, then maybe he won't think anything's up. If you're normally walking about in "adventuring attire," and suddenly you're wearing a big loose robe, that seems a little odd. Also, if he planned this assassination specifically during your conversation with Lord Blargle, don't you think he'd know at least a LITTLE bit about you?

 

B) You still didn't explain why he wouldn't simply aim for the head (unless you're wearing secret helmets under your... I dunno... head robes?), OR why he wouldn't simply use a bolt specifically designed to pierce armor. And if the crossbow is so inaccurate, why would he even try in the first place? If goes for your general torso mass because he can't be sure to hit your head or neck, then how does he know he's not gonna just hit your shoulder and/or miss your vital organs all-together? Seems like a pretty sketchy assassin. Maybe that's just me, *shrug*

 

Well, I'm asserting it is you who choses not to see what I am saying.

Splendid hypothesis. I'd love to read your scientific method writeup on that sometime.

 

My constant need to clarify about every sentence I type is actual evidence that you may be failing to read what I'm actually typing in the first place before responding. If you can produce evidence that I'm completely failing to address your words, I'd very much like to know of such evidence, so that I may correct such inadvertent neglect.

[TrashMan]

 

 

A notion that seems equally silly to me. It's a good thing no one backed such a notion.

 

Well, you did mention positioning the party at the entrance the assasin will come trough and dogpiling on him the second he comes. Which implies you know who he is OR the comabt auto-starts.

 

 

 

Sorry. That's absolutely true. The room might be the entire universe, so there might, in fact, be infinite possibilities for placement. u_u

 

Wy to go mr. Literal.

A big, luxurious mansion is gonna to have a lot more possible positions than a small room. Good positions alos depend on the position of everything else within that space. Colums, tables, plants, furniture and other people who are generally on the move).

 

 

 

 

 

If something has a reason to be scripted and doesn't really benefit from full tactical control, then CLEARLY that leads us to "All things should be scripted and will never benefit from full tactical control." I'm glad you picked up on that without me having to explain it. That would've been troublesome. u_u

 

Nice job missing the point.

How does navigating trough a convo in any way gives you more flexibiltiy OR is faster or simpler than just clicking on the location?

 

It's more work for the developer for no actual gain.

 

 

 

 

 

A) Why are you wearing a robe? If you're the head priest of the town, then maybe he won't think anything's up. If you're normally walking about in "adventuring attire," and suddenly you're wearing a big loose robe, that seems a little odd. Also, if he planned this assassination specifically during your conversation with Lord Blargle, don't you think he'd know at least a LITTLE bit about you?

 

Clothing for formal events varries depending on cultuire, but it is typicly designed to look impressiv,e highly decorative and layered.

So why wouldn't you be wearing some kidn of robe? You not going naked - anything that covers up your torso can more or less cover a breastplate. You cna wear a kevlar vest beneath clothes - you can also do the smae with a breastplate.

There are clothes out there thehat would do a good job of hiding it.

And no, changing clothes is not unusual for human beings, especialyl when beinginvited to a formal party. What WOULD be strange if you came to the party in your normal adventurer gear.

 

 

 

 

B) You still didn't explain why he wouldn't simply aim for the head (unless you're wearing secret helmets under your... I dunno... head robes?), OR why he wouldn't simply use a bolt specifically designed to pierce armor. And if the crossbow is so inaccurate, why would he even try in the first place? If goes for your general torso mass because he can't be sure to hit your head or neck, then how does he know he's not gonna just hit your shoulder and/or miss your vital organs all-together? Seems like a pretty sketchy assassin. Maybe that's just me, *shrug*

 

Because the head is a hard target to hit and long-range medieval weapons aren't known for their accuracy. Yeah, he could go for your head - but he is less likely to miss. And if he misses he isn't going to get a second chance.

Like I siad - poison is the best bet.

 

 

 

 

 

My constant need to clarify about every sentence I type is actual evidence that you may be failing to read what I'm actually typing in the first place before responding. If you can produce evidence that I'm completely failing to address your words, I'd very much like to know of such evidence, so that I may correct such inadvertent neglect.

 

Evidence?

You mean besides all the other conversations we had?

 

I'm not sure they prove what you think they prove.

[Lephys]

I'm not sure they prove what you think they prove.

I'm not sure you're capable of comprehending points that you wouldn't have already made, yourself. I think anything more on my part here is wasted effort. If you want to be narrow-minded, that's your prerogative, and there's not really anything wrong with that. It just doesn't support discussion between us, is all.

 

Good day to you, sir *tips hat*.

[Randomthom]

Are you guys still banging on about this silly little point? Why not just agree to disagree, one of you wants to cast the spell yourself, the other wants it as a dialogue option.

 

You've completely derailed the thread anyway, perhaps it would be better for you two to take this discussion to PM or are you waiting for a 3rd party to come in & say I agree with Lephys/Trashman?

 

At least neither of you fell foul of Godwin's law...

[Lephys]

You've completely derailed the thread anyway...

I fail to see how discussing possible ways to handle positioning during a scripted event is off-topic. o_o

 

And yes. I actually live in a cave, and I carve a small tally mark into the wall every time someone comes along in these forums and agrees with me.

 

ASSIMILATION IS INEVITABLE! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! You WILL think what I think! *eye glow*