Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The New World update #29: On C&C and Storytelling

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Tell me more about this turn based stealth you speak of?
From an older update:

You know what to expect (more or less) from the character, combat, and dialogue systems. A proper stealth system is something new, which means there are many exciting ways to screw it up. So let's take a look at the rough "on paper" concept and get some feedback. Keep in mind that The New World isn't a stealth-focused game like Thief and we can't allocate all our limited resources to the stealth system alone. Having said that, we do want to offer an interesting and well-designed alternative solution to many side quests and a well-supported path through the game (like the talker's way in AoD - you couldn't talk your way in and out of every situation but you could talk your way through the game).

Let's start by giving you a specific example from one of the early quests and then go over the features. You need some energy cores, one of the scavenger crews has them, so you can either talk to them (pay a lot of money or con them like a pro), kill 'em all (always popular), or sneak around and do some breaking and entering.

There’s a built-in air purifier out back, you can use your Mechanics skill to open the hatch, making some noise in the process. If nobody comes to investigate, you enter the premises and TB stealth mode. The crew's leader is in the room next door, drunk after celebrating a successful run (if you come back later, he will be more alert). We check if he heard the noise. If he didn’t, he stays where he is. You need to make your way to a locked strongbox. Each step generates some noise, if he hears it, he goes to investigate. Finally, lockpicking the stronghold generates some noise too. So again, if he hears it, he goes to investigate. If not, he remains where he is and you get away clean.

If he does hear the noise, he goes to investigate, heading for the place where the noise originated from, meaning you should get as far away from that place as possible (as far as your AP allow, which means that sneaking will require high Dex and proper feats) or ambush him.

If he sees you (i.e. you're caught in his cone of vision), he goes for his gun, otherwise he starts searching. During the searching phase, if he comes close to you but doesn’t see you, you get an optional interrupt allowing you to insta-kill him using your trusted Critical Strike skill. Failing the attempt starts combat. You can also attempt to sneak up on him and kill him during your turn. If he sees you, he gets an interrupt attack and shoots you in the face.

Details:

1) Each action (movement, lockpicking, hacking, etc) is assigned noise points. The points, modified by your gear and Stealth) will add up with each action and will determine whether or not an NPC acting as 'guard' is alerted and goes to investigate.

So in this case you open up the hatch, the guard hears a light click but ignores it. You step inside, he hears something but ignores it too. You take several steps and finally get the guard's attention, raising his alert level. You success depends not a dice roll but on your skills and gear (either you can stay below the guard's radar or you can't). You can trigger his alert level the moment you step inside or when you make it to the strongbox and open it. Each subsequent action increases the alert level. A good thief can clean up the entire room, a not-so-good thief would have to stick to his objective and consider himself lucky if he isn't caught.

2) The movement’s noise points start at 1 and go up with every step (i.e. with every tile). It’s not that the third step makes more noise than the first two but the act of walking produces more noise than taking a single step (i.e. a single footstep may not be enough to trigger a guard’s attention but 3 footsteps might, plus it takes more skill to silently cross a hallway than to take a step or two). Thus more challenging tasks will require much higher skill levels and better gear. Same goes for optional objectives.

3) Your skills and gear will modify the noise points. For gear, we won’t go with % penalty but with +1, +2, etc. So if you wearing army boots with +2 and metal armor with +3, but your Stealth is 5, you generate 1+2+3-5 =1 points plus 1 with each step. Remove the armor and it will take a lot longer to make enough noise to alert the guards but if you’re caught, you’ll be wearing nothing but your jumpsuit.

4) Each guard's alert level is determined by his PER, something like 15-PER. So a guard with PER 8 will be alerted when you generate more noise points than 7. Thus the goal for the player is to have the right gear (not just the armor but the tools of the trade like jammers and electronic lockpicks) to reduce noise (if it takes you 5 min to open a lock, odds are you'll make more noise than someone who can open it in 30 sec). Overall, longer infiltration missions are much harder to pull off than shorter/simpler ones, which makes sense (without relying on higher checks, I mean).

5) In more open areas you can move freely during your turn. As long as the guards won't see you or won't become alert, you'll be able to get in and out without any problems. Getting caught doesn't always mean combat and painful, vividly described death. The exact outcome will differ based on each situation. Maybe your designated thief (can be you or any member of your crew) can talk his/her way out. Maybe the guards rob the thief and throw him/her out. Maybe they kill him or maybe they yell "we have your guy, come out!" and then you either come out and talk or leave him to his fate (to be killed).
 

hivemind

Guest
the C&C in this situation seems p good, standard AoD level stuff desu, not seeing nothing too radically different conceptually

what's the default outcome if you ignore the quest?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
He has fewer men but his men are ex-soldiers and have better gear. Jonas has more men but most of them are thugs, so it's quality vs quantity. As mentioned previously, Braxton will easily get Mercy to join him, so he'll have both the quality and quantity.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Since the player will take sides, both sides should have strong positions and offer compelling arguments. The player should feel that he/she is doing the right thing. Whoever the player sides with are the good guys fighting the good fight, the other side automatically becomes the evil that must be stopped (i.e. good and evil shifts with perspective).

Since the player will take sides, both sides should have strong positions and offer compelling arguments. Unlike in a traditional or reskinned fantasy setting, there is no "good" or "evil" faction

This is the thing I'm concerned with.

What does it mean for me? That all factions and sides will feel the samey, differences will be in just details, choice will be "pseudo" and thus - bland.
How could everyone be right every time?
This mean that:
a) argumentation for every side/faction will be pure sophistry - less belibability in a world, everything seems artificial(ly built/written)
or
b) devs will be avoiding sides/caes that make difference

Let's remember Fallout 2 - there was slavery guild. You could become part of it. Was there any argumentation that this is right thing?
I don't think so. It was just "lets raid and find slaves - man for work and women to fuck".
So there wasn't anything like that - player could consciously choose bad side of reality.

If there is no bad sides - then why we need choice, if all choices are equivally good?
I think it just knock the ground from under the feet of moral satisfaction you can get otherwise.

Ideally there should be bad and good guys/factions, but if not for major factions - at least do something side-based for this, some side quests/situations.
It will make world to be mich more believable instead of "infunite gray zone".
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Since the player will take sides, both sides should have strong positions and offer compelling arguments. The player should feel that he/she is doing the right thing. Whoever the player sides with are the good guys fighting the good fight, the other side automatically becomes the evil that must be stopped (i.e. good and evil shifts with perspective).

Since the player will take sides, both sides should have strong positions and offer compelling arguments. Unlike in a traditional or reskinned fantasy setting, there is no "good" or "evil" faction

This is the thing I'm concerned with.

What does it mean for me? That all factions and sides will feel the samey, differences will be in just details, choice will be "pseudo" and thus - bland.
How could everyone be right every time?
New to Earth, are you? Take any conflict, the Reds vs Whites in Russia, York vs Lancaster, USA vs USSR, Protestants vs Catholics during the 30 Year War, Democrats vs Republicans, etc. Each side was utterly convinced that they're the good guys fighting evil bastards, each side had strong arguments why they are the good guys. Human Nature 101.

If there is no bad sides - then why we need choice, if all choices are equivally good?
So back to Good vs Evil then?

It will make world to be mich more believable instead of "infunite gray zone".
It's not about gray zones, it's about a simple fact that two parties in any conflict would have different views on said conflict.
 

Quantomas

Savant
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
260
Vault Dweller and MRY, good presentation all around, and it seems you invested a lot of thought.

What bothers me about the state of RPG today, it is that quests and settings are still defined narratively.

Instead you could view the anchors as processes (open problems) that can interact in a variety of ways.

[time] drives processes forward, including aging
[ship's factions] vie for power and influence
[the pit] somewhat anarchic aggregation of dwellings and citizens
[Jonas] tries to make his fortune from his influence on the pit; gets more desperate with [time]; needs to maintain a balance with [ship's factions]
[Braxton] in charge of the [regulators]; aware of leverage provided by [ship's factions]; tries to gain influence of [the pit]
[Mercy] has beliefs that drive her; can provide support to [Jonas] and [Braxton]
[the ship] environment purpose-built for a mission; compromised and more extreme with [time]
[scarcity] lack of resources and technology increasing with [time]
[radioactivity] affects ...
[hydro labs] ...

You arrive at a much wider interaction matrix this way, and quests/dialogs arrive naturally from the current state. As this is an SF setting, different scientific and technological processes can indeed make a major difference.

I doubt you can change course this far in development, but it's a different view that may help you to envision more of the setting's potential, a tool in the hands of who can make use of it.

That's my problem with RPGs today, even if the writing is good, it's too samey. It's (mostly) always a rehash of what we had already.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Dictator Paullus vs Agathoth.

First is definitely better.

Each side was utterly convinced that they're the good guys fighting evil bastards

Bullshit. The one were and the other were not - how it's perceived today is not the case becuse of constant present manipulation of history.
Famous White Army signed such document that in exchange of help from overseas "friends" they just gave away HALF of the country.
HALF. Definitely a fine patriots that had their points, sure.
I can say about Protestant and Catholics too lol - both were wrong, both lost their way to a God, and their todays state of affairs signalize that very well.

Each side was utterly convinced that they're the good guys fighting evil bastards

It doesn't matter what THEY were convinced they are good guys - we can find fine examples in psychiatry where people did Very Bad Things (tm) and were sure they doing good or normal things. Cannibals for example.
It's just a words, and they worth nothing - why player at all should listen them?

At least there should be clear line between the WORD any faction spit at you and their DEEDS player can see, or see description of them.

So no matter how someone crying loud how they are right - it's impossible that everybody right in the same time, while opposing each other, it's called schizophrenia.

Also all this - is a historical examples about some political and religious movements and events.
And that's not the case because in game it's just a clash of some gangs or big gangs called factions.
So there isn't some Big Truth between them - it's just a struggle for a local power.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Bullshit. The one were and the other were not - how it's perceived today is not the case becuse of constant present manipulation of history.
Famous White Army signed such document that in exchange of help from overseas "friends" they just gave away HALF of the country.
HALF. Definitely a fine patriots that had their points, sure.
Because they thought their country was lost and no price was too high to save what they can. To lose half the country to Europe in order to save the other half from the commie plague was better than to lose everything to that plague. In a sense they were right. And let's not forget Lenin handing over the Baltic States to Germany to thank them for their patronage.

So no matter how someone crying loud how they are right - it's impossible that everybody right in the same time, while opposing each other, it's called schizophrenia.
There's a huge difference between being right and thinking that you're right.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Because they thought their country was lost and no price was too high to save what they can.

More rimind me "It better to be a big fish in a shallow pond then small fish in the ocean" - mentality of gang boss, not those who is actual patriot.

To lose half the country to Europe in order to save the other half from the commie plague was better than to lose everything to that plague.

That's why many from them actuallywent over to the side of the Red Army. Some of them were real patriots.

There's a huge difference between being right and thinking that you're right.

Sure, they could think what they want, but my point i different - it was said that "The player should feel that he/she is doing the right thing. Whoever the player sides with are the good guys fighting the good fight, the other side automatically becomes the evil that must be stopped" - so they are equally right and thus irrelevant.
Like - what the difference?

I can understand that every side has its appeal, but "every side is fighting good fight"? Dunno, that's when I feel some doubts.
 

Shilandra

Learned
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
152
Location
The Hive
Since the player will take sides, both sides should have strong positions and offer compelling arguments. The player should feel that he/she is doing the right thing. Whoever the player sides with are the good guys fighting the good fight, the other side automatically becomes the evil that must be stopped (i.e. good and evil shifts with perspective).

Since the player will take sides, both sides should have strong positions and offer compelling arguments. Unlike in a traditional or reskinned fantasy setting, there is no "good" or "evil" faction

This is the thing I'm concerned with.

What does it mean for me? That all factions and sides will feel the samey, differences will be in just details, choice will be "pseudo" and thus - bland.
How could everyone be right every time?
New to Earth, are you? Take any conflict, the Reds vs Whites in Russia, York vs Lancaster, USA vs USSR, Protestants vs Catholics during the 30 Year War, Democrats vs Republicans, etc. Each side was utterly convinced that they're the good guys fighting evil bastards, each side had strong arguments why they are the good guys. Human Nature 101.

If there is no bad sides - then why we need choice, if all choices are equivally good?
So back to Good vs Evil then?

It will make world to be mich more believable instead of "infunite gray zone".
It's not about gray zones, it's about a simple fact that two parties in any conflict would have different views on said conflict.

I think hes more talking about the fake/forced grey of factions. Like "Jonas is a rugged frontiersman and staunch freedom loving individualist... But he also an aging pimp who beats his whores and slits childrens throats! Such complexity, very hard moral choices, wow!"

While people and agencies can and are like this, when it comes to games trying to make complicated factions they'll do things like that to insert artificial complexity because they want to avoid clear black and white, good and evil factions. He's saying he's okay with something like a horrid slaver faction (and I'm assuming its converse) existing and that creating factions like that shouldn't be avoided because they can be viewed as clearly black or clearly white.

I dont think thats what you're doing, factions with a super good philosophy but they secretly sacrifice babies to Cthulhu every other saturday, But I think thats what he's ultimately concerned with.
 
Last edited:

Forest Dweller

Smoking Dicks
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
12,196
Also, I'm pretty sure at my game over there was an immortal demon enslaving the area because that was back when a talkie character couldn't really do anything other than that.
This was changed?
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
I think hes more talking about the fake/forced grey of factions. Like "Jonas is a rugged frontiersman and staunch freedom loving individualist... But he also an aging pimp who beats his whores and slits childrens throats! Such complexity, very hard moral choices, wow!"

While people and agencies can and are like this, when it comes to games trying to make complicated factions they'll do things like that to insert artificial complexity because they want to avoid clear black and white, good and evil factions.

Yeah, something like that. It looks artificial. Where is the usual bad guys who just doing bad things because they like to do that? Without complex moral stuff?

I don't mean - save Trump - that only such faction should be done, but something could be done in this department to "revitalize" the landscape.
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,703
Location
California
Also, I'm pretty sure at my game over there was an immortal demon enslaving the area because that was back when a talkie character couldn't really do anything other than that.
This was changed?
I believe a talkie character with the right faction relationships can raise a unified army to kill it now, right?
 

Shilandra

Learned
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
152
Location
The Hive
I think hes more talking about the fake/forced grey of factions. Like "Jonas is a rugged frontiersman and staunch freedom loving individualist... But he also an aging pimp who beats his whores and slits childrens throats! Such complexity, very hard moral choices, wow!"

While people and agencies can and are like this, when it comes to games trying to make complicated factions they'll do things like that to insert artificial complexity because they want to avoid clear black and white, good and evil factions.

Yeah, something like that. It looks artificial. Where is the usual bad guys who just doing bad things because they like to do that? Without complex moral stuff?

I don't mean - save Trump - that only such faction should be done, but something could be done in this department to "revitalize" the landscape.

Yeah. This isn't strictly faction related but I enjoyed the option to flay that werewolf bitch you fight while she was still alive in MOTB. Edgy as it was I think people come down to hard on what they perceive to be boring mustache twirling villainy. Sometimes just letting the player have the option to indulge in or inflict abject cruelty onto another person or group is okay and can even work well if contextualized properly.
 

Binky

Cipher
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
453
We did have a good range of options there, more than most games that send you to some long forgotten temple at the end.
That goes without saying. I'm saying you can, have, and (I assume) will do better. Let me elaborate:
We should have made the temple optional and much harder to get to...
A perfect example of such a location: Al-Akia
Not all characters get there, fewer still are allowed to go underground. It has different stat & skill checks. Many, many different choices with a wide range of outcomes. Do you serve Antidas? He can be convinced to blow up the entrance. Sided with Athanasius or are a Guard? Tell Paullus the truth or convince him the place is harmless (perhaps for your own use later on). Convinced Hagnon to abandon the siege? He blasts it too.

Are you there with Meru? You can make sure the ritual does or does not succeed. Ritual performed? Kneel before Zod Balzaar or kill his geriatric vessel - which is easily achieved (Balzaar 0, lowly worms 2). Become or fail to become a demigod, crystal armor, Qantari chamber, diaries, scolopendra, ...

It is easily one of the best locations in the game, if not the best. Best of all? The supernatural is kept low-key. Arch, Abyss, Al-Akia. Not everyone gets to know the truth.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Because they thought their country was lost and no price was too high to save what they can.

More rimind me "It better to be a big fish in a shallow pond then small fish in the ocean" - mentality of gang boss, not those who is actual patriot.
Surely you can see why some people saw the communist plague as the end of Russia?

There's a huge difference between being right and thinking that you're right.

Sure, they could think what they want, but my point i different - it was said that "The player should feel that he/she is doing the right thing. Whoever the player sides with are the good guys fighting the good fight, the other side automatically becomes the evil that must be stopped" - so they are equally right and thus irrelevant.
Like - what the difference?
The difference is in reasons offered to the player and the future (consequence). To put it simply, if you side with the White Guard and win, things go back to 'normal' (no socialism, no red terror, no Soviet Union); if you side with the Bolsheviks and win, well, you know how this story ends.

I can understand that every side has its appeal, but "every side is fighting good fight"? Dunno, that's when I feel some doubts.
People tend to think they're right and have good reasons, no matter what they do.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Surely you can see why some people saw the communist plague as the end of Russia?

Someone see something as plague on daily basis in the world...

People tend to think they're right and have good reasons, no matter what they do.

I just don't know how it's possible for every side to look good and not turning it all into bullshit and demagogy.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I think hes more talking about the fake/forced grey of factions. Like "Jonas is a rugged frontiersman and staunch freedom loving individualist... But he also an aging pimp who beats his whores and slits childrens throats! Such complexity, very hard moral choices, wow!"
That's Mark's characterization, not mine. Rugged frontiersman often means killer as you have to fight to keep what you have and if you're doing well, it means you're pretty good at killing. See Jeremiah Johnson aka Liver-Eating Johnson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver-Eating_Johnson

Freedom-loving (in a lawless setting) often means 'will bow to no man and kill anyone who says otherwise'. Thus, I'm not saying he's a rugged frontiersman who loves freedom but he also hates kittens. I'm saying that the negatives are built-in into that freedom-loving frontiersman bit. See Dodge City or Deadwood or any other lawless town full of freedom-loving frontiersmen.

People tend to think they're right and have good reasons, no matter what they do.

I just don't know how it's possible for every side to look good and not turning it all into bullshit and demagogy.
Because each side has different reasons and arguments. For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way. Thus, who's right and who's wrong is determined by your own views. You'll never think that both camps are right.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this update was actually trying to make the point that all the factions in The New World are "shades of gray, neither totally good nor totally evil" when viewed from a bird's eye view perspective. Not that they won't be, but it's not really the point of the update.

My reading was that the update is primarily about the way the faction content should be written once you've already made the decision to join one.

Once you pick a side, other factions' beliefs become obstacles that amplify the downsides to your faction. As Mark Yohalem said it, “in a world where you can only make an omelet by cracking eggs, they keep trying to knock eggs out of your hand on the floor, mess with the heat on the stove, or slosh the pan.”

The quests and challenges you face as a faction member accentuate the negatives of the rival factions - but that's a point of view you receive as a single actor, not necessarily the totality of your faction's moral ledger.
 

Rivmusique

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
3,489
Location
Kangarooland
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Also, I'm pretty sure at my game over there was an immortal demon enslaving the area because that was back when a talkie character couldn't really do anything other than that.
This was changed?
Was this ever the case? Couldn't you always just

walk away from the mystery box (or nuke it) at the end and get the "faction gig" ending (probably the merchant's guild, as a talkie)
Unless the "immortal demon" you refer to is capitalism, in which case, you are correct.
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,703
Location
California
Yes, you could definitely solve it that way. It felt pretty empty though.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom