Preview Dragon Age sightings at 1UP

[The_Nameless_Prick]

Any writer who can develop such an amazingly deep and detailed character as Drizzt - beloved by millions, mind you - is a great writer in my book.

Now let's talk about games, Oblivion is loved by millions, and many people consider it amazingly deep with detailed characters (definately not me, though), would that make Bethesda great developers in your book, VD?

 

[The_Pope]

I'm guessing you'll have to equip your helm of detect sarcasm +3.

 

[The_Nameless_Prick]

I guess so. I'm actually in a very serious mood right now and when that happens perception, intuition, and detect sarcasm drop 10 points, while foolhardiness and assholeness go up 15 points.

 

[sabishii]

Any writer who can develop such an amazingly deep and detailed character as Drizzt - beloved by millions, mind you - is a great writer in my book.

Now let's talk about games, Oblivion is loved by millions, and many people consider it amazingly deep with detailed characters (definately not me, though), would that make Bethesda great developers in your book, VD?

Drizzt IS an pretty deep and detailed character, but the problem is that while he was great at first, he's been written about way too many times without enough change in his character so that he's "boring" now.

Edit: Okay, not "amazingly" deep but "pretty" deep.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

I guess so. I'm actually in a very serious mood right now and when that happens perception, intuition, and detect sarcasm drop 10 points, while foolhardiness and assholeness go up 15 points.

Or you are just an idiot.

 

[suibhne]

Drizzt IS an pretty deep and detailed character, but the problem is that while he was great at first, he's been written about way too many times without enough change in his character so that he's "boring" now.

Edit: Okay, not "amazingly" deep but "pretty" deep.

He was somewhat interesting in the original IWD trilogy just because he was sui generis, but even the subsequent prequel Dark Elf trilogy was insultingly banal from a psychological or character standpoint. Salvatore is many things (most of them bad), but a psychologist he ain't. ("OMG OMG DRIZZT CLOSD HIS EYEZ AND BECAEM TEH HUNTER OMG.")

But that's neither here nor there, because I'm still laughing at everyone who took VD seriously re. Drizzt. :D

 

[Vault Dweller]

Drizzt IS an pretty deep and detailed character, but the problem is that while he was great at first, he's been written about way too many times without enough change in his character so that he's "boring" now.

Edit: Okay, not "amazingly" deep but "pretty" deep.

He was somewhat interesting in the original IWD trilogy just because he was sui generis, but even the subsequent prequel Dark Elf trilogy was insultingly banal from a psychological or character standpoint. Salvatore is many things (most of them bad), but a psychologist he ain't. ("OMG OMG DRIZZT CLOSD HIS EYEZ AND BECAEM TEH HUNTER OMG.")

But that's neither here nor there, because I'm still laughing at everyone who took VD seriously re. Drizzt. :D

lol indeed. How could someone take this line ("I bet you didn't know that his eyes are a lavender hue and very unusual in general. And you said that Salvatore is a shitty writer. Shame on you!") seriously, I would never understand.

 

[Twinfalls]

Stop back-pedalling, Vault 'Paul' Weller. Lavender is a beautiful colour, and a gorgeously poetic word - as is 'hue'. Combining the two is sublime; the work of an artist in his prime.

 

[The_Nameless_Prick]

lol indeed. How could someone take this line ("I bet you didn't know that his eyes are a lavender hue and very unusual in general. And you said that Salvatore is a shitty writer. Shame on you!") seriously, I would never understand.

Like I said...

 

[Human Shield]

Maybe I'm repeating myselft, but...

wasn't the whole White Wolf "Vampire the Masquerade" and "Werewolf the Apocalypse" pen&paper universe part of what the designers called "a STORYTELLING game"? And that is the one extreme while the "Lone Wolf" books obiviously are the other one. But still - p&p with a good dm (a had my share) is playing a part in someone ELSES story, because, because the dm creates the setting and the story "bangs" (thanks HumanShield).

Don't know if you were paying attention.

The Storytelling system doesn't do anything for creating a story. Any system or style of play can produce a "story" as in a series of events. The DM leading everyone along on the great story he created is; "based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated."

"The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated."

This is how Bioware CRPGs have been designed. They have weak gamist gameplay and then try to promote the "story" as the centerpiece, throwing the player from one point to the next. The parts between the story could include any type of gameplay, the system doesn't create story.

Choices are based more on preferences and playing towards your alignment (simulation). I've come to believe much more interesting approaches could be done that doesn't bore the player as much.

Ironically the parts they probably thought least about like the Bhaal choices at the end of BG2, are parts where story and system work together slightly. You get a moral choice backed up by sacrificing tactical elements, engaging the player and bringing gameplay to the story.

 

[Volourn]

You are an idiot.

 

[Zomg]

"The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated."

I don't understand why this is given a pejorative name in GNS rhetoric, and shifting the context to brittle CRPGs makes it even more attractive. That is essentially exactly how PS:T works, where the plot is only slightly mutable but the narrative changes based on the characterization of the player-character and on compartmentalized areas with substantially branched plot that don't significantly interact with the overplot (ex: the warrens stuff). It's fine to want a different kind of game than PS:T, but it's absurd to complain that PS:T is some degenerate design when it works so well. Good is good; theories should be servile.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate RPGs where the player constitutes more of the plot, like Darklands or Fallout, but I consider them a different species.

 

[Human Shield]

I don't understand why this is given a pejorative name in GNS rhetoric, and shifting the context to brittle CRPGs makes it even more attractive. That is essentially exactly how PS:T works, where the plot is only slightly mutable but the narrative changes based on the characterization of the player-character and on compartmentalized areas with substantially branched plot that don't significantly interact with the overplot (ex: the warrens stuff). It's fine to want a different kind of game than PS:T, but it's absurd to complain that PS:T is some degenerate design when it works so well. Good is good; theories should be servile.

Don't confuse terms. I didn't say it was bad, I'm saying it is incoherent design. How much do people praise the combat in PS:T? How much did the rules system really add? Moving between story points could have been done with any gameplay. Story isn't the driving force of the "game" in PS:T.

But PS:T did engage more moral choices then most games. I'm just saying it would be improved if system was driving behind those decisions instead of feeling tacked on to D&D, if the rules were more inline with the mutable elements. The shifting alignment based on decisions would have worked better with some more real effects.

"Illusionism is a widespread technique of play and arguably, textually, the most supported approach to the hobby...Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dysfunctional: it works well when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript ends up being a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so beyond accepting the GM's Techniques."

In these CRPGs the transcript (series of events) is designed to be "the story". I feel the transcript is getting more and more planned in detail for newer RPGs in the name of better and more immersive "stories". Designers are told to give more 'story' and that is the only way they know how, with cutscenes.

They could be great stories (probably won't beat PS:T) but every game has a transcript, to confine RPGs to transcript centric games (Japan has already done so) would be closing a huge door. Adventure games can deliver transcript, so can action games, focusing on "story = transcript = what RPGs should be" opens the door for developers to fill the gameplay with whatever action gameplay they want and claim to be an RPG because of "story".

So don't be surprised with all of the revamping of CRPG gameplay for more action, the designers have no idea what to do with 'system' and since it doesn't effect transcript the doors are wide open for action games with a focus on transcript (aka Next-Gen OMGZ RPGs).

They have no idea what type of gameplay they are making anymore. TB tactics for gamists is getting dulled; narrativists have a few choices for every tenth game with the numbers dropping; and simulation is given areas and expected events for the genre but it is mostly just copying what has come before and lowering the logic and reaction of the game world's causality and character motives.

 

[sabishii]

"The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated."

I don't understand why this is given a pejorative name in GNS rhetoric, and shifting the context to brittle CRPGs makes it even more attractive. That is essentially exactly how PS:T works, where the plot is only slightly mutable but the narrative changes based on the characterization of the player-character and on compartmentalized areas with substantially branched plot that don't significantly interact with the overplot (ex: the warrens stuff). It's fine to want a different kind of game than PS:T, but it's absurd to complain that PS:T is some degenerate design when it works so well. Good is good; theories should be servile.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate RPGs where the player constitutes more of the plot, like Darklands or Fallout, but I consider them a different species.

I don't think "illusionism" is bad, but rather it is bad when illusionism fails and then players ARE aware of the extent to which they are manipulated.

 

[bylam]

lol indeed. How could someone take this line ("I bet you didn't know that his eyes are a lavender hue and very unusual in general. And you said that Salvatore is a shitty writer. Shame on you!") seriously, I would never understand.

Is that bad writing or shitty editing??

 

[Zomg]

I think that's a point-of-view issue. I think I have kind of an inverted approach to roleplaying, where instead of having some fleshed out idea of a character in my head to start with, I go with a tabula rasa that gets built up as the game offers either more choices or styles with which to define the character or backstory to bound it. Not that my way is the right way, but you can see how that would alter my criticism.

@Human Shield: I share your pessimism. Realistically, I agree with you - while on a theoretical plane I think a lot of the usual anti-tedium and pro-storytelling decisions are acceptable, in crass reality they rarely seem to work out.

 

[Voss]

In terms of books/movies, no shit. An author writes a book and things happen only when he says they happen. But in terms of the audience's perception when they read the book or watch the movie? Bullshit, they are never supposed to perceive that the plot can kill the heroes. Do you go into a movie saying to your friend, "Oh, don't worry, only the plot can kill the main characters"? Do you start a book not worrying about the livelihood of the main characters because you know they will only die when they're supposed to? No.

Sorry, but this is crap. With only a tiny handful exceptions in books and movies, this is exactly my impression- the characters will only die when they're supposed to. Its a serious flaw among writers and filmmakers today. There is almost NO chance of a main character just dropping dead from a casual encounter, or anything but a major plot point. (You bring up Boromir and I'll smack you. Tolkien did everything short of dancing around him naked waving flags while chanting 'He's going to die, he's going to die!' from the moment he was fucking introduced). And given the overabundance of 'farm boy' stories, the hero's livelihood is never even a fucking issue. He's obviously going to be king or magical advisor or whatever lame-ass modern equivalent the writer cares to slap onto his derivative piece of shit.

But characters dying along the way always impresses me a little since it almost never happens. Unless you're reading/watching 'Dark' fiction, in which case its reversed- you know the poor fucker the hero is banging is almost certainly going to die, and its a surprise when it doesn't happen. People don't like realism in their Cheerios, an authors almost always bow to the Lowest Common Denominator.

In books and movies, the writers have the luxury of not needing to sacrifice realism for plot points because they are writing static stories that can't be affected in any way. For RPGs, though, the developers do NOT have this luxury. They are not writing a static plot; they are writing a dynamic one affected by the player's actions in the game.

And yet, both situations (books/movies and CRPGS) happen ALL THE TIME.

You are right in that this shouldn't apply to computer games (due to the interactive nature of games), but the devs have to go all the way and deal with the consequences of the deaths- other NPCs should react to charater deaths (through a script, or whatnot), if they're the primary vehicle for conveying emotions to the player. If not, they have to find some other way of conveying the consequences to the player.[/img]

 

[sabishii]

You're probably right about LOTR and I didn't really mean to consider the "majority" of fiction. And I think you got that I was talking about the ideal minority where there actually is a lot of realism, where instead of thinking, "I wonder if/how the author is going to kill this character," the reader thinks, "I wonder if this character is going to die." A good example is the Song of Ice and Fire series.

Actually, you can even consider the derivative fiction you talked about here, as the main thing we're considering is how a character can get knocked down to 0 hp and then get up normally. Even in a cliche "farm boy" story you don't have anything this drastic to ruin the suspension of disbelief. Basically, in an RPG where this happens, I have to ask myself how it makes sense that a character can die when it fits in the plot, yet whenever he receives fatal wounds he never ever dies.

That's why I mentioned the luxury of not having to sacrifice realism for plot. You're right, there is a lot of that that goes on in the mainstream. However, nothing drastic like the example I just mentioned happens normally in a story just because the writer doesn't have to put a character in that situation, since he's writing the story. But the thing is, in an RPG, developers don't have that luxury because of the freedom the player has. While in a book the writer doesn't have to write a character into this situation, in a game your characters are GOING to be in combat. And so in reading a book, the reader will not have to wonder how come a certain character "dies" and then "revives", but in an RPG without normal deaths the gamer will wonder why.

It's pretty similar if not the same as the case with forced NPCs, actually. The basic question is, "How come this can't or doesn't happen even though it should be possible?"

 

[galsiah]

...the writer doesn't have to put a character in that situation, since he's writing the story. But the thing is, in an RPG, developers don't have that luxury because of the freedom the player has. While in a book the writer doesn't have to write a character into this situation, in a game your characters are GOING to be in combat.

Sure, but the designer can make "death" very unlikely by acting through the player: if the player has a really strong incentive to avoid "death", he'll do everything he can to prevent it - rather than putting invincible characters up front as meat shields.
A character surviving near-fatal wounds many times is not credible. Surviving a few times is reasonably credible. By creating a very strong incentive to avoid "death", the designer can maintain a measure of credibility.

The question then becomes one of preventing the player from wanting to reload. I think this can be done, so long as "death" (or indeed death) leads to interesting, entertaining situations, rather than merely being a dull penalty.
The player will almost certainly still avoid it, since he wants to do the best he can for his party. However, when it happens, he's not necessarily going to reload if he's placed in an interesting situation.

For "death"/death to have the right impact, it needs to be relatively rare (in most genres), and have interesting consequences. This applies to every medium. In a book/film, this can be achieved just by writing things that way. In a game, it needs to be done through the player. That means incentivizing behaviour that provides the impact you want.
While not possible to do perfectly, and hard to do well, this is not impossible.

It's foolish to think that a game designer has no control unless he directly scripts everything.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

Don't know if you were paying attention.

Yes, I was paying attention, but I was merrily ignoring your point! That's because you confuse "story-telling" and "plot-advancing" which are both based on Athenian rules of drama actually, but very different indeed.

As far as I remember my Shakespear classes (an my scornful discussions with bad DMs) every "story" develops in a state of communication with characters and plot combined by what is called "narration" (even more so if there is another level of communication like the one with an active audience). If both are seperated there is actually NO story or the narration gets very deriative. Think of absurd theatre or the girl DM who sent their pnp group forcefully through the plot of "Willow", without taking "story" into consideration or trying to make a sensible narration. I also remember a whole night of walking through grassland while the DM waited for us to "do" something.

You critisize classic pnp systems for a inability they don't have: The interaction between plot an characters. Actually you dismiss 30 years of traditional roleplaying that I will never call "boring" or "tedious".

I tend to believe that REAL roleplaying can't be achieved with any set of rules (even your favourite one, that I won't name here) or even LARPing for that matter. BUT you can devolp "story" even in D&D and WoD. There are some really bad ones (MERS comes to mind as an example) where everything feels plot forced and those (PARANOIA anyone?) that have a lack of system tools for actual narration.

 

[Human Shield]

Yes, I was paying attention, but I was merrily ignoring your point! That's because you confuse "story-telling" and "plot-advancing" which are both based on Athenian rules of drama actually, but very different indeed.

As far as I remember my Shakespear classes (an my scornful discussions with bad DMs) every "story" develops in a state of communication with characters and plot combined by what is called "narration" (even more so if there is another level of communication like the one with an active audience). If both are seperated there is actually NO story or the narration gets very deriative. Think of absurd theatre or the girl DM who sent their pnp group forcefully through the plot of "Willow", without taking "story" into consideration or trying to make a sensible narration. I also remember a whole night of walking through grassland while the DM waited for us to "do" something.

You will need to explain this more. What is the difference between "narration", "story-telling" and "plot-advancing"?

"Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.

Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home.

The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue."

You critisize classic pnp systems for a inability they don't have: The interaction between plot an characters. Actually you dismiss 30 years of traditional roleplaying that I will never call "boring" or "tedious".

What do you think this 'interaction' means? And why is it impossible?

You are looking at 30 years of one type of roleplaying, its been dominated by gamist/simulationist and illusionism.

I tend to believe that REAL roleplaying can't be achieved with any set of rules (even your favourite one, that I won't name here) or even LARPing for that matter. BUT you can devolp "story" even in D&D and WoD. There are some really bad ones (MERS comes to mind as an example) where everything feels plot forced and those (PARANOIA anyone?) that have a lack of system tools for actual narration.

What the hell do you think "REAL roleplaying" is, and why is it different then people that study the field?

"Story" can be done with drifting from any rules and forced transcript.

 

[Elhoim]

I was thinking that it would be cool if a character death opens up a "post-mortem quest", in which the rest of the party goes into a quest that consists in finishing something that the dead character had pendent (finding a lost sword or anything), or doing something to cherish the charcter memory (he wanted his ashes to be thrown into the eastern sea).

This would open up interesting possibilities, and unique storylines. It would even lead players to kill their companions to experience those quests...

And on a side note, I think it should be hard for a character to die, but not impossible.

 

[Monolith]

I was thinking that it would be cool if a character death opens up a "post-mortem quest", in which the rest of the party goes into a quest that consists in finishing something that the dead character had pendent (finding a lost sword or anything), or doing something to cherish the charcter memory (he wanted his ashes to be thrown into the eastern sea).

This would open up interesting possibilities, and unique storylines. It would even lead players to kill their companions to experience those quests...

Ehh, kill my companion because he wants his ashes to be thrown into the eastern sea? You have a strange understanding of "companionship".

 

[Elhoim]

I was thinking that it would be cool if a character death opens up a "post-mortem quest", in which the rest of the party goes into a quest that consists in finishing something that the dead character had pendent (finding a lost sword or anything), or doing something to cherish the charcter memory (he wanted his ashes to be thrown into the eastern sea).

This would open up interesting possibilities, and unique storylines. It would even lead players to kill their companions to experience those quests...

Ehh, kill my companion because he wants his ashes to be thrown into the eastern sea? You have a strange understanding of "companionship".

Nope, I said the would happen if he died for example in combat, but not killed by my PC. But this would lead the player (the human) to let characters die so they can do their post-mortem quests.

 

[Kairal]

I think the problem with death in RPGs is more to do with reloading in general than anything else.

Fire Emblem, while certainly not a CRPG, has interesting death mechanics. The game autosaves before every attack and if a character dies they die forever. A save is kept before the beginning of each stage, therefore allowing the player to accept a character's permanent death or restart the stage (generally around 1/2 an hour or so of play). In practice this means that you will often allow characters to die if it's been a particularly difficult battle.

As long as a player can load without inconvenience they will never accept any game mechanic which has any kind of set back. For example I haven't played X-com but I'm guessing that it was inconvenient to reload if a character was injured. Most people aren't going to choose to accept playing without their favourite characters for a time if they could reload 30 seconds earlier and prevent it.

I'm not advocating Fire Emblem's system for all games as it was often very frustrating. However simply making a load start the player at the nearest town (so as to force them to fight to return where they were) along with a short term penalty for death would encourage people continue playing whilst still ensuring that death is avoided where possible. Even if the penalty can be easily removed back in the nearest town it still affects the player for the duration of the dungeon.

On another tack it's quite hilarious to see you all up in arms up the lack of realism inherent in resurrection whilst completely ignoring the ability to "travel back in time" when loading.