Baldur's Gate 1/2 gameplay is total shit.

[PorkaMorka]

Why no pre-oblivious TES (way to casually gloss over the one of the best original settings in fantasy cRPGs)? I'm ignoring both the "non action" and "sword and sorcery" (seriously, does Arcanum even qualify?) parts here, as I see no reason for constraining contenders mechanics wise when discussing fucking settings (even being or not an RPG is irrelevant here), nor to limit ourselves to arguably the most cliche-ridden subgenre of fantasy - unless the point was to carefully doctor the conclusions by manipulating sample, but then "well, and youa redumb" is more than sufficient reply, earning extra points for style and brevity.

Nah, I honestly didn't know what would happen when I did that retrospective, although obviously I kind of suspected, since I've played a lot of CRPGs and their settings tended to be really really uninspired and hilariously lacking in depth compared to even bad P&P worlds.

I left out action RPGs because I'm not gay I don't play action RPGs or really think much of the idea of counting them as RPGs. So I wouldn't be interested in starting from 0 knowledge and researching the setting of Titan Quest to see if it had elephant people.

It could be interesting if someone else wanted to do it though.

I limited it to sword and sorcery because it's much easier to come up with interesting new PC races in a science fiction / science fantasy / planetary romance, namely aliens. (although video game designers are still pretty shitty at coming up with aliens)

Plus I personally am mostly interested in classic RPGs involving melee combat as the primary mode of combat for the fighting man, as innumerable hours of squad based tactics games have left me with extremely high standards as far as ranged combat modeling goes.

 

[mountain hare]

Did Charisma even have a purpose in Baldur's Gate? Hell, it didn't even have any bearing on a sorcerer's spell casting ability (unlike 3E).

 

[Glyphwright]

It's purpouse was supporting the Paladin's abilities and making other people like you more in conversations. All in all, a dump stat.

 

[taplonaplo]

It made stuff cheaper and you could get a dagger+1 in candlekeep with 18cha.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Do you have any other examples of good and bad? You tended to pick two very shabby settings as your examples. Wizardry setting is merely a slight motivator, and not meant to give a giant tour de force backstory.

Wizardry (so long as you like the gameplay type) = all about the game.

Torment (so long as you actually like the story) = all about the story.

If you go into either of these games without enjoying the element, or catch, of each game, you might as well not bother. ie: Don't play Wizardry for the story/setting. Don't play Torment for the gameplay.

Hang on, FR has Kobolds, Gnolls, Werewolves, etc. Were you having a go at Dog People a moment ago?....why yes, you were! Care to elaborate?

Nnnnnnnnecro Reply!

Blandness can be an asset in an RPG setting, because by and large video game designers are quite bad at designing RPG settings, which is understandable as it is hard.

If you take your medieval fantasy RPG and set it in a bland part of the Forgotten Realms, the setting won't hold many surprises, sure.

But it's also not going to be offensively bad, and since we're so familiar with the generic fantasy elements and races, these bland concepts are unlikely to come off as wrong, out of place, or overly cheesy, and "take us out of the game". The setting won't be a strength of the game, but it won't be a weakness either, the game will have to stand or fall on it's other merits.

Orcs and elves are certainly bland, but they still come out far ahead of Cat People (Avernum), Dog People and Wookies (Wizardry 8) in terms of avoiding avoiding a cheesy or silly feel.

Avoiding silly PC races is much more important than avoiding silly monsters as with hundreds of monsters some level of silliness is inevitable, but there are only a few PC races and you see them a lot more, and may have to bring one along.

Avoiding the cheesy/silly feel is essential to help the player to "buy into" the fantasy world.

The worst settings tend to be the ones invented by video game developers trying to be original.

Let's take a little retrospective through non action, Sword and Sorcery CRPGs, set outside of the FR, but still having non human playable races (so Darklands gets left out):

Arguably better than FR

Planescape: Torment - This setting is noteworthy because they managed to design some interesting new player races (tiefling, aasimar, giths, bariur ) that don't come off as silly. The standard fantasy races are also heavily present. Of course, this is a licensed setting from Pen and Paper and one of the top settings they produced in terms of originality

Dark Sun 1,2 - Still has elves, dwarves, (cannibal) halfings, etc but introduces some decent new races (muls, half giants, thri-kreen), as well as psionics, and overall puts a very nice spin on things to keep it from being your standard fantasy world. Of course, licensed from a pen and paper setting

Betrayal at Krondor - Elves, Dwarves, Humans. Probably slightly less cheesy than FR, but that is primarily due to cutting out races and showing the non human ones they have less. Anything is going to come off as less cheesy when you are fighting mostly humans. Most importantly though, licensed from a novel, not homebrewed by a video game developer

Arcanum - personally, I am so over the whole steampunk thing, but I'll grant you this was a quite high quality setting, considering it was made up by videogame developers. But of course, it keeps the orcs, elves, hobbits, ogres etc.

Ultima - The lack of cheese is based on addition by subtraction, almost everyone is a human, when they do encounter another race it's a big deal etc. If the game was trying to make for diverse character builds it wouldn't work, but since combat is a joke after the early series, races aren't so necessary. Might actually be able to be excluded, I forget if you ever get a non human in your party.

About the same as FR:

Realms of Arkania 1, 2, 3 : Solid but generic fantasy world with orcs, elves, etc. Possibly a slight bonus for extra emphasis on human cultures. Essentially the same as FR. Also a licensed setting from pen and paper RPGs.

Temple of Elemental Evil - Set in Greyhawk, which is the exact same shit as FR but more generic. Orcs, Elves, etc Also a licensed setting from pen and paper RPGs.

Dragonlance - again, same generic fantasy stuff with minor twists. Less generic than Greyhawk/FR but also probably a bit more cheesy than FR in most cases due to the book tie ins and over use of dragons, but not significantly so. The games didn't seem cheesy at all if you hadn't read the books.licensed

Ravenloft - It's horror D&D, with dwarves and elves etc, but the videogames were probably not the best way to judge the setting as a whole. Cheese level likely highly variable, a licensed setting from pen and paper RPGs.

Worse/more cheesy than FR:

Avernum - Cat people, lizardmen and generic humans. Strictly worse than FR in terms of races; Sillier due to Cat people, but also less interesting in terms of character building as you have 3 races to pick from, but humans are worthless and lizards are only good as pole fighters so you end up running 4 Cat people or 3 Cat people and a Lizard. Being in a cave was interesting although poorly used.

Might and Magic - just a slightly dumber version of the Forgotten realms, with a poorly done Sci Fi twist at the end of each game and a tiny fraction of the backstory. Orcs, Elves etc, although in the poorly regarded Day of the Destroyer, they introduce PC races which are from generic fantasy, but usually NPC only, like trolls and dragons and vampires and dark elves. Inoffensive, but just lacking any real development due to being made up for a videogame.

Wizardry - All the classic fantasy races, plus Cat people, dog people, lizard people, dragon people and wookies (fucking wookies man). Essentially the nightmare scenario.

Wizards and Warriors - Elephant people, Lizardmen, Ratmen, Tigermen, complete with ridiculous names. Fuck you D.W. Bradley, fuck you. Elephant people!!?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? fuck

Spelljammer - I can't say I gave it a fair shake, but it seems to me this is a case of being too original.

Septerra Core - JRPG world designed to cash in on FF7. Only on here for completion's sake, although the setting wasn't as bad as the Wizardies or anything.

Not sure

Dragon Age Origins - did not play, have heard it is pretty much a generic dwarves and elves setting with some renaming and low quality "modern" twists like using fantasy races as stand ins for real life human groups

Geneforge - did not play, found real time outside of combat concept upsetting, as well as finding setting offensive

Entomorph - ???

Magic Candle - elves, dwarves, goblins, lizardmen, amazon, wizards as a race

Bards Tale - by three we have all the standard races, plus gnomes and half orcs

Conclusion

1) Video game developers are not original enough to come up with anything besides
a) all humans
b) generic fantasy races... possibly with a minor twist on some of them
c) some sort of ridiculous animal people

2) FR may be bland, but what does that make the huge numbers of CRPGs set in inferior clone settings (or homebrew clone settings like Might and Magic with no where near the backstory to draw from)?

3) We are kind of fucked. Since D&D is dead, and by far the best settings were licensed from D&D products.

4) Arcanum is really unique in having a good setting yet not being licensed. Too bad they didn't make the gameplay better.

Good post!! I want to add that the Forgotten Realms didnt really get the A+ treatment. Pool or Radiance had the lore, pace, and story but it was in the ugly era so the art and graphics were all in your head, IWD might have had the best art in RPG history but if you weren't a big fan of the combat there was nothing else, NWN 2 is a technical marvel with all the spells, feats etc but you still couldn't fly and the story was mediocre. Even Motb which was noted for having a gritty story in a unique setting didn't come close to capturing a mythical land of berserkers and witches.

A setting is basically what artist and writers make of it.

I was a comic book kid growing up. I read just about everything. My favorite alltime wasssss

Why?? Great art, great writing.

 

[DraQ]

I left out action RPGs because I'm not gay

Yet, you included a JPG (other than Anachronox) on your list.

I don't play action RPGs or really think much of the idea of counting them as RPGs. So I wouldn't be interested in starting from 0 knowledge and researching the setting of Titan Quest to see if it had elephant people.

At this point of discussion it is necessary to ask what definition of an aRPG are we using? All RT cRPGs? Then we should discount all IE games, especially how much cheese can you cause in them by carefully controlling character movement. All H&S? Then why shouldn't we discuss TES 2-3? Besides, if we discount H&S on basis of setting being but a pretext for experiencing the joys of genocide, then why we are discussing Wizardry again?

I limited it to sword and sorcery because it's much easier to come up with interesting new PC races in a science fiction / science fantasy / planetary romance, namely aliens. (although video game designers are still pretty shitty at coming up with aliens)

And what's the difference between coming up with aliens living on another planet and flying around in ships, and aliens living on another continent (or even plane), and teleporting around with magic? Either you suck at coming up with anything interesting/fail to maintain convincing internal logic of the setting or you don't. In the first case you invariably end up with cheese, the distinction between nominally sci-fi cheese and cheese that is unashamed of being fantasy is purely academic.

Additionally, an effective PnP setting will rarely have any potential for becoming a good world (case in point: BG1 ). First things first, PnP settings tend to be inclusive (smartass for "kitchen-sink") or generic, to allow for most flexibility. Second, they tend to be mechanically rigid, with lore linked to the mechanics, to accomodate numerous expansions over a long period of time. While integration of gameplay and lore is arguably a good thing when the gameplay adapts to the lore, it becomes downright backward when the lore is dragged back by rigid mechanics. A game series may rapidly improve mechanically without requiring many (if any) retcons, while a PnP setting may only do so with subsequent editions.

As a result, a PnP setting, as exemplified by FR, will generally fail to form basis for a cohesive gameworld.

That's where you doubly fail by excluding TES-verse, which simply eats and craps D&D out (like Boethiah did with Trinimac - that would explain 4E, BTW), despite starting off as really cheap D&D knock-off (fortunately it got better and was really good for quite some time before getting raped by Todd).

 

[thesheeep]

Unfortunately, adding special dialogue for dumb characters is a huge amount of work, usually too much for most teams. Or just too expensive.

How about simply not allowing dumb characters (or intelligent characters while we are at it), then? Retarded dialogue lines are also a penalty for low Int stat, no different from penalty for low dex or low str.

No intelligent characters in a DnD game? You must hate your target audience
Seriously, nobody except some educated individuals will get the reason for that.
They would simply go "Who cares about fucking dialogue, I want my 18 Int!".
And they would be right, since combat is simply much more important in the BG series (and DnD in general) than well-designed stat-sensitive dialogue.

I didn't find it to be that disturbing that my very intelligent mage was sometimes not able to give the intelligent answers one would expect.

 

[visions]

It made stuff cheaper and you could get a dagger+1 in candlekeep with 18cha.

Yes, you could get better rewards for some quests. I'm not certain but I'm also thinking whether high charisma helped in any dialogs that would (or could) lead to fights (avoiding the fight with Marl in that inn in Beregost, destroying Bassilus's undead minions) or you just had to choose the right dialog options.

 

[DraQ]

It made stuff cheaper and you could get a dagger+1 in candlekeep with 18cha.

Yes, you could get better rewards for some quests. I'm not certain but I'm also thinking whether high charisma helped in any dialogs that would (or could) lead to fights (avoiding the fight with Marl in that inn in Beregost, destroying Bassilus's undead minions) or you just had to choose the right dialog options.

Speaking of which, to add insult to injury, the right combination of stats/responses usually yielded you much less XP than just hacking your way through.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Unfortunately, adding special dialogue for dumb characters is a huge amount of work, usually too much for most teams. Or just too expensive.

How about simply not allowing dumb characters (or intelligent characters while we are at it), then? Retarded dialogue lines are also a penalty for low Int stat, no different from penalty for low dex or low str.

No intelligent characters in a DnD game? You must hate your target audience
Seriously, nobody except some educated individuals will get the reason for that.
They would simply go "Who cares about fucking dialogue, I want my 18 Int!".
And they would be right, since combat is simply much more important in the BG series (and DnD in general) than well-designed stat-sensitive dialogue.

I didn't find it to be that disturbing that my very intelligent mage was sometimes not able to give the intelligent answers one would expect.

I think I also was a bit more forgiving of it simply because I had until that point strongly associated crpg with early Wizardry games and Ultimas. Hence I was used to int and wisdom just being some random measurement of 'good-at-magey-stuff' or 'good-at-clericy-stuff'.

 

[Sceptic]

At this point of discussion it is necessary to ask what definition of an aRPG are we using? All RT cRPGs?

I've noticed this creeping up on the 'dex and I am about it. In another thread EOB became an ARPG. What the fuck?

 

[DraQ]

At this point of discussion it is necessary to ask what definition of an aRPG are we using? All RT cRPGs?

I've noticed this creeping up on the 'dex and I am about it. In another thread EOB became an ARPG. What the fuck?

I know LoL was one too.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Unfortunately, adding special dialogue for dumb characters is a huge amount of work, usually too much for most teams. Or just too expensive.

How about simply not allowing dumb characters (or intelligent characters while we are at it), then? Retarded dialogue lines are also a penalty for low Int stat, no different from penalty for low dex or low str.

No intelligent characters in a DnD game? You must hate your target audience
Seriously, nobody except some educated individuals will get the reason for that.
They would simply go "Who cares about fucking dialogue, I want my 18 Int!".
And they would be right, since combat is simply much more important in the BG series (and DnD in general) than well-designed stat-sensitive dialogue.

I didn't find it to be that disturbing that my very intelligent mage was sometimes not able to give the intelligent answers one would expect.

I think I also was a bit more forgiving of it simply because I had until that point strongly associated crpg with early Wizardry games and Ultimas. Hence I was used to int and wisdom just being some random measurement of 'good-at-magey-stuff' or 'good-at-clericy-stuff'.

I couldn't forgive that. Not after playing Fallout and not with the amount of dialogue that the game had. Fuck, even the Icewind Dale - a dungeon crawler had more role-playing in dialogues than Baldur's Gate.
And in BG2 not after fucking Planescape: Torment. Also, the half-assed implementation of AD&D and lack of dynamism didn't make the combat satisfying for me, so I didn't see enough redeeming features for that .

 

[Azrael the cat]

Do you have any other examples of good and bad? You tended to pick two very shabby settings as your examples. Wizardry setting is merely a slight motivator, and not meant to give a giant tour de force backstory.

Wizardry (so long as you like the gameplay type) = all about the game.

Torment (so long as you actually like the story) = all about the story.

If you go into either of these games without enjoying the element, or catch, of each game, you might as well not bother. ie: Don't play Wizardry for the story/setting. Don't play Torment for the gameplay.

Hang on, FR has Kobolds, Gnolls, Werewolves, etc. Were you having a go at Dog People a moment ago?....why yes, you were! Care to elaborate?

Nnnnnnnnecro Reply!

Blandness can be an asset in an RPG setting, because by and large video game designers are quite bad at designing RPG settings, which is understandable as it is hard.

If you take your medieval fantasy RPG and set it in a bland part of the Forgotten Realms, the setting won't hold many surprises, sure.

But it's also not going to be offensively bad, and since we're so familiar with the generic fantasy elements and races, these bland concepts are unlikely to come off as wrong, out of place, or overly cheesy, and "take us out of the game". The setting won't be a strength of the game, but it won't be a weakness either, the game will have to stand or fall on it's other merits.

Orcs and elves are certainly bland, but they still come out far ahead of Cat People (Avernum), Dog People and Wookies (Wizardry 8) in terms of avoiding avoiding a cheesy or silly feel.

Avoiding silly PC races is much more important than avoiding silly monsters as with hundreds of monsters some level of silliness is inevitable, but there are only a few PC races and you see them a lot more, and may have to bring one along.

Avoiding the cheesy/silly feel is essential to help the player to "buy into" the fantasy world.

The worst settings tend to be the ones invented by video game developers trying to be original.

Let's take a little retrospective through non action, Sword and Sorcery CRPGs, set outside of the FR, but still having non human playable races (so Darklands gets left out):

Arguably better than FR

Planescape: Torment - This setting is noteworthy because they managed to design some interesting new player races (tiefling, aasimar, giths, bariur ) that don't come off as silly. The standard fantasy races are also heavily present. Of course, this is a licensed setting from Pen and Paper and one of the top settings they produced in terms of originality

Dark Sun 1,2 - Still has elves, dwarves, (cannibal) halfings, etc but introduces some decent new races (muls, half giants, thri-kreen), as well as psionics, and overall puts a very nice spin on things to keep it from being your standard fantasy world. Of course, licensed from a pen and paper setting

Betrayal at Krondor - Elves, Dwarves, Humans. Probably slightly less cheesy than FR, but that is primarily due to cutting out races and showing the non human ones they have less. Anything is going to come off as less cheesy when you are fighting mostly humans. Most importantly though, licensed from a novel, not homebrewed by a video game developer

Arcanum - personally, I am so over the whole steampunk thing, but I'll grant you this was a quite high quality setting, considering it was made up by videogame developers. But of course, it keeps the orcs, elves, hobbits, ogres etc.

Ultima - The lack of cheese is based on addition by subtraction, almost everyone is a human, when they do encounter another race it's a big deal etc. If the game was trying to make for diverse character builds it wouldn't work, but since combat is a joke after the early series, races aren't so necessary. Might actually be able to be excluded, I forget if you ever get a non human in your party.

About the same as FR:

Realms of Arkania 1, 2, 3 : Solid but generic fantasy world with orcs, elves, etc. Possibly a slight bonus for extra emphasis on human cultures. Essentially the same as FR. Also a licensed setting from pen and paper RPGs.

Temple of Elemental Evil - Set in Greyhawk, which is the exact same shit as FR but more generic. Orcs, Elves, etc Also a licensed setting from pen and paper RPGs.

Dragonlance - again, same generic fantasy stuff with minor twists. Less generic than Greyhawk/FR but also probably a bit more cheesy than FR in most cases due to the book tie ins and over use of dragons, but not significantly so. The games didn't seem cheesy at all if you hadn't read the books.licensed

Ravenloft - It's horror D&D, with dwarves and elves etc, but the videogames were probably not the best way to judge the setting as a whole. Cheese level likely highly variable, a licensed setting from pen and paper RPGs.

Worse/more cheesy than FR:

Avernum - Cat people, lizardmen and generic humans. Strictly worse than FR in terms of races; Sillier due to Cat people, but also less interesting in terms of character building as you have 3 races to pick from, but humans are worthless and lizards are only good as pole fighters so you end up running 4 Cat people or 3 Cat people and a Lizard. Being in a cave was interesting although poorly used.

Might and Magic - just a slightly dumber version of the Forgotten realms, with a poorly done Sci Fi twist at the end of each game and a tiny fraction of the backstory. Orcs, Elves etc, although in the poorly regarded Day of the Destroyer, they introduce PC races which are from generic fantasy, but usually NPC only, like trolls and dragons and vampires and dark elves. Inoffensive, but just lacking any real development due to being made up for a videogame.

Wizardry - All the classic fantasy races, plus Cat people, dog people, lizard people, dragon people and wookies (fucking wookies man). Essentially the nightmare scenario.

Wizards and Warriors - Elephant people, Lizardmen, Ratmen, Tigermen, complete with ridiculous names. Fuck you D.W. Bradley, fuck you. Elephant people!!?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? fuck

Spelljammer - I can't say I gave it a fair shake, but it seems to me this is a case of being too original.

Septerra Core - JRPG world designed to cash in on FF7. Only on here for completion's sake, although the setting wasn't as bad as the Wizardies or anything.

Not sure

Dragon Age Origins - did not play, have heard it is pretty much a generic dwarves and elves setting with some renaming and low quality "modern" twists like using fantasy races as stand ins for real life human groups

Geneforge - did not play, found real time outside of combat concept upsetting, as well as finding setting offensive

Entomorph - ???

Magic Candle - elves, dwarves, goblins, lizardmen, amazon, wizards as a race

Bards Tale - by three we have all the standard races, plus gnomes and half orcs

Conclusion

1) Video game developers are not original enough to come up with anything besides
a) all humans
b) generic fantasy races... possibly with a minor twist on some of them
c) some sort of ridiculous animal people

2) FR may be bland, but what does that make the huge numbers of CRPGs set in inferior clone settings (or homebrew clone settings like Might and Magic with no where near the backstory to draw from)?

3) We are kind of fucked. Since D&D is dead, and by far the best settings were licensed from D&D products.

4) Arcanum is really unique in having a good setting yet not being licensed. Too bad they didn't make the gameplay better.

Good post!! I want to add that the Forgotten Realms didnt really get the A+ treatment. Pool or Radiance had the lore, pace, and story but it was in the ugly era so the art and graphics were all in your head, IWD might have had the best art in RPG history but if you weren't a big fan of the combat there was nothing else, NWN 2 is a technical marvel with all the spells, feats etc but you still couldn't fly and the story was mediocre. Even Motb which was noted for having a gritty story in a unique setting didn't come close to capturing a mythical land of berserkers and witches.

A setting is basically what artist and writers make of it.

I was a comic book kid growing up. I read just about everything. My favorite alltime wasssss

Why?? Great art, great writing.

Vote 1 for putting Geneforge in the 'absolutely better than FR' category. Not that there's a lot of racial variation - initially. But as the game goes on, more and more of the races who start out as factions (maybe liberated, maybe recruited, maybe hired through a faustian pact by one of the 2 main sides) start popping up as available starting character races.

So in G1/G2 you have a starting character who must be human and must start out as a shaper of some description (you have a classic fighting class with some shaping ability, a solo-ist magic/stealth/mechanics class, or a shaping specialist who can cast a decent spell or two as well - that's just the rough class outlines, there's dialogue/healing/etc skills and stats too).

The boring end of your party s comprised of a mixture of joinable characters (depending on faction, could be serviles (genetically manufactured crop herders), dragons (but it's kind of a rare ploy this early in the series to side with those guys) or other humans. That's boring in itself, though it is cool that the game doesn't treat having odd races as some normal consequence-free thing. If you're going to do a deal with the drayks, who everyone else wants to kill on sight, and who just might be trying to manipulate things so they can ass-rape whoever wins the shaper civil war, there's going to be consequences well beyond having to choose which of your party members to kick out. Choice of followers has consequences, and in a world where the traditional power-holders (the shapers) want serviles under control (they ARE shown to be ruining the farmland and doing a pretty mediocre job of fending for themselves) and all out-of-control creations (drayks, drakkons) dead (and that gets kind of understandable too); and different serviles have different attitudes about the rebel humans trying to help them while not always managing to shake off their old assumptions of superiority....it isn't just a matter of LARPing yourself a furry

The cool end is that your party is usually created by your shaping ability - you create various creatures using your shaping skill and essence points (stat-driven, with learnt recipes and others you can obtain through a means that will 'alter' you, cause rages, change your endings in some cases if you have too many...and a few other nice little side effects - that trade-off is a constant theme through the series, as the 2 sides slide down the moral spiral to match each other at the risk of corrupting themselves, or of letting 3rd or 4th forces wipe out the remains). You basically get 3 'trees' of creations which represent their general focus: melee, fire/ranged and magic/acid, though each tree has some room for flexibility.

That stuff is fucking awesome and I'd love to see an AAA company use the setting and shaping system, even if they were going to rape the C+C and turn it into a combat-fest.

Later, by G4, if you're starting with the rebels (who you can switch sides and join in G1/2) you can be a servile. There are different sets of classes available to rebel humans, 'liberated' serviles and loyalist humans (though they still have mixes of combat, magic, non-combat skills and shaping) - you can rat, re-rat and find further factions waiting in the wings (who usually rock up in force in the next game along) to join, so you're not really limited to specific classes by which faction you want to support. By the later games, non-humanoid classes like drakons, drayks and so on are much more common (often they've moved from being rare occurrences to central to the plot, as the humans and serviles on both sides of the war are almost at breaking point by the later games).

They don't ever introduce 'furry' characters though, and whilst the creations aren't all THAT original 'hey, big humanoid thumping guy', 'big plated clawed guy', some can be pretty cool for tactical TBS 'big humanoid thumping guy that loses hp quickly and then explodes doing AOE dmg'.

Lastly, I think it's a cool setting because it takes all the things that would normally be made the ideology of the 'lol EVIL!!!!' guys who you have to kill to save the princess: the 'government'/enslaving - and does an excellent job of making them not only a viable factional choice, but quite an appealing one. The rebels seem like the cliched good guys, but there's plenty of things going on that make their goals seem maybe a bit foolish. And there's things like the 'destroy all shaping' guys, that start off as a crazy cult in G2, but by the last game are actually making a fairly good case for saying that's what needs to be done (and by the time you get that opportunity, you'll have explored the gameworld enough to know that you just picked the titan of impossible end-game challenges...if you're going to do it without being a hypocrite or without sacrificing yourself/being sacrificed afterwards...).

Sorry, unfocussed rant I know. I really really CAN understand that many folks honestly can't get past the graphics of Vogel's games - not just the tech but the design. But it's a pity, because there's a fucking gem underneath.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I left out action RPGs because I'm not gay

Yet, you included a JPG (other than Anachronox) on your list.

We probably shouldn't get into the fact that early-middle era JPGs, (prior to the takeover of cinematics) are closer to the roots of PNP roleplaying than the solo action RPGs the declined elements of the codex love so much.

PNP roleplaying as played by a bunch of horrible weeaboos, but still.

Anyway, I didn't get far in Septerra Core, I just added it for completeness.

All RT cRPGs? Then we should discount all IE games, especially how much cheese can you cause in them by carefully controlling character movement. All H&S? Then why shouldn't we discuss TES 2-3? Besides, if we discount H&S on basis of setting being but a pretext for experiencing the joys of genocide, then why we are discussing Wizardry again?

It was possible and well supported to play the IE games in manner that limited the only action element to... hitting the pause button.

That's how I played them. If you wanted, you could play them in a more real time manner, in which case you might change how they were classified.

That was sort of the point of making the option.

Similarly, Arcanum isn't an necessarily an action RPG desite it having a real time mode.

And what's the difference between coming up with aliens living on another planet and flying around in ships, and aliens living on another continent (or even plane), and teleporting around with magic?

Well it's easier to come up with aliens or extra-dimensional beings from another plane than it is to come up with races that mesh into a fantasy world living alongside the humans in medieval/ancient times, because people will tolerate more weirdness in a being that is supposed to be alien.

It's no surprise that by far the most successful and universal sword and sorcery fantasy races are so similar to humans.

Additionally, an effective PnP setting will rarely have any potential for becoming a good world (case in point: BG1 ).

How come so many PnP settings have been adopted so successfully to computer roleplaying games then?

Second, they tend to be mechanically rigid, with lore linked to the mechanics, to accomodate numerous expansions over a long period of time. While integration of gameplay and lore is arguably a good thing when the gameplay adapts to the lore, it becomes downright backward when the lore is dragged back by rigid mechanics.

It might be more ideal to base it off a novel, I admit, but that's not particularly likely in this era of non reading. Especially since the superior novels are mostly old as fuck.

Despite the fact that lore and creativity in P&P worlds is held back by game mechanics, the P&P based game still has literally hundreds of times more lore to draw from, or ignore as you see fit.

And videogame lore is alsp are held back by the mechanics of the game, which mechanics tend to be dumbed down and heavily simplified compared to those of a P&P game

But primarily because far less emphasis is generally placed on writing the setting, and far less resources devoted to it.

That's where you doubly fail by excluding TES-verse, which simply eats and craps D&D out (like Boethiah did with Trinimac - that would explain 4E, BTW), despite starting off as really cheap D&D knock-off (fortunately it got better and was really good for quite some time before getting raped by Todd).

I have heard that Morrowind had good lore, but I can't comment on it, as despite beating it (on a not removed from inventory copy of course), I don't remember anything about it as due to the awful gameplay the game didn't really draw me in.

Literally all I remember is cliff racers and horrible furries.

So I won't say anything *against* its lore, I can't say anything about it, I just couldn't get into the game due to it being so utterly divorced in gameplay from traditional roleplaying games.

 

[DraQ]

It was possible and well supported to play the IE games in manner that limited the only action element to... hitting the pause button.

Make it "mashing" and no, it wasn't much better, even with autopause enabled.

Well it's easier to come up with aliens or extra-dimensional beings from another plane than it is to come up with races that mesh into a fantasy world living alongside the humans in medieval/ancient times

Why should we limit ourselves to carbon copying medieval/ancient Occident with magic, mythology and hefty dose of political correctness thrown in?

It's not like Tolkien clones weren't boring from the very beginning so why perpetuate this shit? Why not rip off Mieville for change (but with less shitty races) if you absolutely can't come up with anything original on your own?

It's no surprise that by far the most successful and universal sword and sorcery fantasy races are so similar to humans.

So popular is synonymous with good now?


Also:

How come so many PnP settings have been adopted so successfully to computer roleplaying games then?

How many and how successfully? BG, for example, was terribad setting-wise.

It might be more ideal to base it off a novel, I admit, but that's not particularly likely in this era of non reading. Especially since the superior novels are mostly old as fuck.

That's hardly an excuse for praising the suck.

Despite the fact that lore and creativity in P&P worlds is held back by game mechanics, the P&P based game still has literally hundreds of times more lore to draw from, or ignore as you see fit.

Quantity!=quality.

If you build your shit to be modular with each module having possibly little impact on the others you won't get cohesive convincing world. You get FR-grade minced shit.

And videogame lore is alsp are held back by the mechanics of the game, which mechanics tend to be dumbed down and heavily simplified compared to those of a P&P game

The difference is that videogame lore is more dissociated from mechanics, so that this mechanics can be reworked without messing around with the lore, rather than accumulating successive layers of nonsensical crap. This is one of the very few cases where typically bad gameplay/story segregation works to your advantage.

To sum this up:
lore dragging gameplay forward by the balls = good
gameplay pulling the lore down = bad

I have heard that Morrowind had good lore, but I can't comment on it, as despite beating it (on a not removed from inventory copy of course), I don't remember anything about it as due to the awful gameplay

Isn't it pretty much the norm in this genre?

So I won't say anything *against* its lore, I can't say anything about it, I just couldn't get into the game due to it being so utterly divorced in gameplay from traditional roleplaying games.

What do we consider traditional here? LoL from 1993, for example, was very simplistic and literally popamole (your role in combat pretty much boiled down to popping this one of three buttons at the bottom which went bright first).

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Quantity!=quality.

Bone of contention. To portray a belivable/consistent world you need to know the world. Most of us barely know the world we live in and there is a motherload of info about everyplace. I noticed in the recent coat facotry mosque debate that people talk about muslims and the middle east like they know it as well as their own town/hood. The more lore the better for a DM and while it does raise the level of difficulty when it comes to actually protraying the world if the task is met quantity is quality. Thats the burden of the Forgotten Realms.

 

[DraQ]

Quantity!=quality.

Bone of contention. To portray a belivable/consistent world you need to know the world. Most of us barely know the world we live in and there is a motherload of info about everyplace. I noticed in the recent coat facotry mosque debate that people talk about muslims and the middle east like they know it as well as their own town/hood. The more lore the better for a DM and while it does raise the level of difficulty when it comes to actually protraying the world if the task is met quantity is quality. Thats the burden of the Forgotten Realms.

Quantity alone can't create quality if said lore doesn't come together in a believable manner. If the setting is treated like a bag where you thrown as much crap as you can, you don't end up with cohesive world, but a sack of mostly unrelated dung crammed into single worldspace.

 

[deus101]

wait...are you...arguing about...quality of...fluff?

"Quantity!=quality.

If you build your shit to be modular with each module having possibly little impact on the others you won't get cohesive convincing world. You get FR-grade minced shit. "

I have NO fucking idea on what level you are placing "cohesive convincing world".

But that shit is the GM's or campaign writers job.
And for them its better to have a fuckload of choose from and make the best of it.

 

[PorkaMorka]

It's not like Tolkien clones weren't boring from the very beginning so why perpetuate this shit? Why not rip off Mieville for change (but with less shitty races) if you absolutely can't come up with anything original on your own?

I'm all for more interesting settings, assuming you can keep the classic RPG gameplay.* Certainly if you put aside financial constraints, there is nothing making it impossible for CRPG developers to make settings far better than the ones they have produced so far.

I'm just saying, reviewing the historical record (heh), so far CRPG developers have, with a very few exceptions, not shown a lot of ability to design quality RPG settings.

Most of them either produce inferior clones of FR, or do something silly and distracting, like Wizards and Warriors.

So while FR is cliched and bland, relative to most original (non licensed) CRPG settings, it is likely to be better than the common alternative of... making a setting that is a poorly fleshed out clone of FR.

* However verisimilitude can suffer when you try to force classic RPG gameplay into a setting where it not quite fit. "Why yes, everyone uses high tech swords in the year 3200, and Rocket launchers work exactly like wands of fireballs."

How come so many PnP settings have been adopted so successfully to computer roleplaying games then?

Planescape, Dark Sun, Das Schwarze Auge, FR (go earlier if you don't like BG) and even freaking Dragonlance were translated into computer games successfully and arguably all of them benefited from not being set in worlds as generic as say... Might and Magic.

The difference is that videogame lore is more dissociated from mechanics, so that this mechanics can be reworked without messing around with the lore, rather than accumulating successive layers of nonsensical crap. This is one of the very few cases where typically bad gameplay/story segregation works to your advantage.

Why is videogame lore more divorced from the mechanics? Videogame lore is made for use in a game, just like PNP RPG lore. If anything, with game developers working under such tight deadlines they have little excuse to develop lore that doesn't directly relate to something they need for the main focus of the game.

Whereas when designing an RPG setting they have tons of guys putting in tons of man hours with nothing better to do than to design tons of setting. That stuff can then be mined for use in a videogame with ease, or ignored if you want to make up your own stuff for the game (like for example making up your own main plot but using the resources from the setting to improve the background and side areas that otherwise might get little time spent on them).

The difference in resources spent on lore is huge. That doesn't necessarily translate into better lore for the licensed product, it's just that so far it has in all but a very few CRPGs... ever.

Isn't it pretty much the norm in this genre?

Nope, I still remember significant amounts of stuff from the Gold Box games and the Dark Sun games with vivid detail, despite playing them a few years after they came out and never re-playing them.

The only games I tend to forget immediately are the bad ones and/or the non RPGs.

What do we consider traditional here? LoL from 1993, for example, was very simplistic and literally popamole (your role in combat pretty much boiled down to popping this one of three buttons at the bottom which went bright first).

This is a traditional RPG:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Traditional CRPGs attempted to translate the gameplay of pen and paper RPGs onto a computer, although of course some compromises were necessary due to the move from a social experience to a single player one.

Removing tactical combat in favor of action based combat and removing the party in favor of a single character are two huge steps away from that traditional RPG formula.

BG meanwhile looks to me like an honest and significantly successful attempt to directly translate RPG gameplay into a computer game, in the tradition of the classic CRPGs that came before it (and arguably even going further in some respects (the companions))

Real time with pause was a significant deviation, admittedly, but it was nothing compared to the deviation that was the shift to action gameplay.

 

[FeelTheRads]

found real time outside of combat concept upsetting

Huh? What does this mean?

as well as finding setting offensive

Offensive to what? In what way?

 

[PorkaMorka]

found real time outside of combat concept upsetting

Huh? What does this mean?

Disclaimer: I don't pretend my reasons for not trying Geneforge make a lot of sense, they could mostly be boiled down to "it rubs me the wrong way".

In Avernum, the world moves in a sort of roguelike turn based manner outside of combat.

For every step you take, the NPCs and monsters get to take a step as well. If you don't move, they don't either.

However, in Geneforge, the world moves in real time outside of combat.

This rubs me the wrong way, petty I know.

Offensive to what? In what way?

Offensive to my individual, idiosyncratic and irrational prejudices, mostly.

To quote from the promotional materials:

Geneforge is our newest fantasy role-playing game with a science fiction twist. In Geneforge, you are free to choose what your overall goal is, and you can seek after it with your own horde of deadly, mutant monsters.

You are a Shaper, a member of the most powerful and secretive of the magical guilds. You have the power to create life and mold it to serve your own needs.

For someone with my hatred, distrust and fear of the mutant, the unclean, genetically manipulated monstrosities and those with aberrant or tainted bloodlines, this does not strike me as a character I want to play.

If anything, I'd want to play as his opposition, and cleave him down with a greatsword then burn down his lab.

I probably should have just left my summary at "did not play" though, as these are not real criticisms of the game, just reasons why it didn't appeal to me personally.

Although the lack of a party is also a big concern, in a more substantially game mechanics related way.

 

[CrimHead]

: Baldur's Gate sucks.

Everyone Else:

:

 

[analt]

Arguably better than FR

Ultima - The lack of cheese is based on addition by subtraction, almost everyone is a human, when they do encounter another race it's a big deal etc. If the game was trying to make for diverse character builds it wouldn't work, but since combat is a joke after the early series, races aren't so necessary. Might actually be able to be excluded, I forget if you ever get a non human in your party.

I'll argue. What exactly does the Ultima setting consist of? Richard Garriott, his Ren Faire friends, and a few towns that they pretend to live in. As you pointed out, it only works because there's almost nothing there. Is Britannia even a feudal society? Who knows. Sure, the set dressing is great, but real world building is almost completely absent. It works for the game, sure, but can you imagine trying to ''steal'' the Ultima setting? What would you steal? Swords?

 

[racofer]

CrimHead is the only one who gets it.