Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

snap xD

 

Sawyer went through a bunch of tumblr questions, this is the only one of note.

 

Sounds like Obsidian. Reject the standard, have a better idea in theory, take it through three lackluster implementations in practice

 

Having an 'enjoyable to use' Quest Editor sounds good, means we might get lots of C&C.

Applying a heavy hand over at Eternity forums, haha

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...can-we-have-an-update-this-week/#entry1386971

 

What if the options have more consequences:

"I completely agree with you, Morrigan!" +5 influence Morrigan, -5 influence Alistair, +1 reputation Knights of Walpurgis
"I suppose you're right, Morrigan." +1 influence Morrigan, -1 influence Alistair, get item x
"You're right, although I am reluctant to admit it." -1 influence Morrigan, +1 influence Alistair, get item y
"Maker damn you, witch, but you're right." -5 influence Morrigan, +5 influence Alistair, +1 reputation Knights of Templar.
"Let's kill that idiot Alistair." +10 influence Morrigan, initiate combat with Alistair, +5 reputation Knights of Walpurgis

Suddenly it's much more interesting and if these options would not have these transparent consequences or if the consequences would only be shown after the discussion it would be very difficult to predict the consequences which, I guess, may or may not be a good thing depending on who you talk to.

If it's just a simplistic influence system then it doesn't really mather either way but with more consequences I'd like to see them beforehand instead of having to resort to guessing what they could be. Of course this kind of system makes it more of a "what consequence do I like best", instead of "what do I say," so there is that. On the other hand, dialogue without transparency is often "which of these do I think is most likely to have the desired consequence," so not much of a difference there.

I think if the consequences are plentiful enough and the mechanics deep enough, the transparent system has the higher enjoyment potential.

For example, let's consider a system where you could slowly nudge your companions to be more like what you would want them to be. The companions would perhaps have different base values and maybe a "resistance" value which would define how easily you can change them.

"I completely agree with you, Morrigan!" +5 influence Morrigan, +5 confidence Morrigan, -5 detachment Morrigan
"I suppose you're right, Morrigan." +1 influence Morrigan, +3 confidence Morrigan, -1 detachment Morrigan
"You're right, although I am reluctant to admit it." -1 influence Morrigan, +2 confidence Morrigan, +1 detachment Morrigan
"Maker damn you, witch, but you're right." -5 influence Morrigan, +1 confidence Morrigan, +2 detachment Morrigan
"You're totally wrong." -10 influence Morrigan, -5 confidence Morrigan, +5 detachment Morrigan

The confidence of Morrigan could conceivably improve a statistic of hers and the detachment might affect how easily Morrigan would go along with cold-hearted options and also how she would react to being a noble softy. Eg. if you want to slaughter a town full of people, a +100 detachment Morrigan would be totally fine with it but with -100 detachment she would leave your party in disgust. Alternatively, if you want to go feed the children in an orphanage with the rare dragon meat you just obtained, the same +100 detachment Morrigan would leave the party in disgust.

Just a simple example, it would need to have more stats to be truly interesting but something like this might be tasty. Or it might be too much micro-management. Either way, with obfuscated consequences it would be nigh impossible to manage this.

 

Vampire The Masquerade never showed player requirements. Dialogue options appeared only if you had high enough skill. And no +1 influence, Charachter is disappointed or other indications were given. And in the result character reactions seemed natural. So no, "WTF I have 90 influence, why did he refused!?"

 

I disagree with both "groupings" here. Infinitron: surely, mechanizing roleplay is exactly what we need to nuke larping from orbit and actually have "true" roleplaying, in the sense what you say and do is reactive? Like, indeed, it would be in Pen & Paper or IRL larp.

However, listing some stat blocks with some linear boni next to them like Declinator suggests is so bloody hamfisted it can hardly be the optimal choice.

Space Satan: For all my love for Bloodlines, it had mostly basic "Win/Lose" checks. It hardly had the complexity of relations that this discussion concerns.

 

You can achieve reactivity without spelling out the influence changes. You're already getting feedback in the form of differing dialogue responses, changes in the characters behavior, etc. BG2 and PS:T had companion morale mechanics running under the hood.

 

BG2's companion "morale mechanics" are exceedingly simple and not at all what we're discussing here. You could insult someone in 20 dialogues and use the exact right line of dialogue in three prompts and you'd be on your way to the same glorious romance as the next guy.

 

On the other hand you gotta agree with Sawyer's point that you need to have some sort of proof-of-reactivity besides a replay to solidify choices as what they are - actual choices.

I like the info better up front, but I'd like another solution altogether. I hated influence-hunting in KotOR2.

 

With that i actualy disagree. You made your choices, and you see the world responds to them in a manner that makes sense. Why should you know that your character could have different dialogue options with different stats and what that options would be? That should only be revealed in a replay. What are you gaining with having greyed out dialogue options?

 

I know he was talking about tags, I just think the argument can be applied to influence etc. as well.

Rake: I agree that stat-display is ham-fisted. But you are not representing the truth when you claim that the world reacting to you is always clear. Choices are of no particular interest if you do not know you are making them. With the amount of non-reactive dialogue these games are bound to have, "hiding" meaningful choices is not desirable in my opinon.

 

It's easy to tell if it will go up or down, but often the degree to which it changes surprises me.

 

http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/109792-project-eternity-interview.html

They are.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/316398

You're also making an awful lot of unfounded assumptions about how other people play games. "They're more likely to metagame because I think they will." Yeah well Josh has actually watched numerous people play Black Isle/Obsidian games and doesn't believe it's a problem. I'm pretty sure Obsidian showed the influence numbers in kotor2, nwn2, ap, and ds3 because they believed doing it that way would be best and not because they were "forced."

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...t-eternity-thread.75947/page-930#post-2949709

 

Gotta agree with Infinitron, the player needs to be wary of what he choses in a dialogue, the dialogue needs to be naturally reactive instead of just showing a bunch of numbers that will bring out the min/maxer in every cRPG player ever. You should be able to tell if what you said was something the other wanted to hear by his/her reaction.

Numeric values remind me am playing a game, this is not good. Also, im not against dialogue options with [Skill] or [Attribute] markers, but i dont want to know for sure if my check succeeded or failed, i should be able to tell by the npcs reaction, or shouldnt if it is the nature of the npc to hide such things, even if not voiced, what he said and a small description on how it my line seems to have affected him/her is all thats needed. The game needs to keep track of the numbers thing, not me.

This does not only allow for replay value, it leaves evidence that the game does indeed care for what you do, but that you have limited control over what happens, like, you know, in good PnP or in real life. I love the feeling of a game being much bigger than it appears, it makes me want to explore it, experience it. It is one of the main reasons i started playing cRPGs in the first palce.

 

And let's not forget that pissing people off could be beneficial in AP, so that influence had a short term, middle term (deciphering all the environmental clues about the character's personas) and long term strategic element. By the way that's precisely where the real game was IMO.

 

While i agree with it, i believe there are other solutions. You can have the choices being clear through writing. I never met a person that have trouble with the choise between Bodhi and Shadow Thieves in BG2.

"Are you sure about that chap? This won't sit well with Ceasar.You can still back off and stay out of our mess" is in my opinion preferable than You lost 10 Legion points.
I would prefer Avellone and co. go a little out of their way to make choices clear than Sawyer to stick + or - all over the place.

 

Bullshit Grunker, PST never indicated choices and stats checks in dialog and i never had any trouble figuring out they were there (except in the case it was a inventory item check).

Goddamn do you fucking gamists have to remove all traces of adventure games from a rpg before being satisfied?
A transparent dialog tree is a poor dialog tree. You should get lost in them and after your 3rd replay find something new which opens something else on another place!

 

[Insight, Perception] Representing big concepts like faction standing with numbers is probably more acceptable than representing a relationship with an NPC that the player is supposed to care about as a bunch of numbers. +1 KKK -10 Roguey -2 Grunker

[Mechanics] Non-explicit statistics are only a problem when the system in place is unintuitive. If the attributes are given clear descriptions as to what they do, you do not need to know the exact numbers behind everything. You do not even need to know exactly how much damage you're doing when you hit something. -20 Roguey

 

What about DA2's solution? Instead of evolving on a straightforward influence system you take a stance between two or more sides (Friendship and Rivalry). Provided polarizing (but subtle) characters, this might be fine.