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

[hoverdog]

Fucking larpers.

 

[CrustyBot]

Why does he complain about romances, then?

Surely, if he wants the most compelling and amazingly written romance, he'd just imagine it instead of expecting one in the game, which reduces his ability to roleplay.



On some level, I understand his point, but not only is he confusing reactivity as a mechanic and design goal with ambiguity as a storytelling device, he's just gone completely with it. Might need the full post and context, though I suspect I'll need the brain bleach if I search it out.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...omance-thread-pt-3/page__st__100#entry1262135

Read this

Romance thread, still? Thought he was talking about something else (C&C). Fuck that. I already know I'll endure SAN loss if I read the full thing.

Probably complaining about how you can't imagine the way you're fucking your party members and how intentional ambiguity is better than the C&C of clicking on the "Let's fuck" line and a clip of said fucking because it isn't how your character would do it.

Basically,

Fucking larpers.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Our new favourite novelist Merin about single-player RPGs:

Any bits of story that are implied, any character reactions or backstory or events not shown on the screen are all in your head. Your imagination is what makes games and stories work. As Scott McCloud would tell you, the gutter is the most important part of sequential storytelling.

And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours.

The skilled story-teller (or cRPG designer) is the one who knows what is best left to the imagination and what is important to concretely show.

This is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Jarpie]

Why does he complain about romances, then?

Surely, if he wants the most compelling and amazingly written romance, he'd just imagine it instead of expecting one in the game, which reduces his ability to roleplay.



On some level, I understand his point, but not only is he confusing reactivity as a mechanic and design goal with ambiguity as a storytelling device, he's just gone completely with it. Might need the full post and context, though I suspect I'll need the brain bleach if I search it out.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...omance-thread-pt-3/page__st__100#entry1262135

Read this

Romance thread, still? Thought he was talking about something else (C&C). Fuck that. I already know I'll endure SAN loss if I read the full thing.

The post is not about romances, it's about "roleplaying", C&C and reactivity.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Snippet from his newest post:

Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

C&C not essential? HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC!

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

 

[evdk]

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

Too bad he hasn't meant it that way. But hey, maybe he's practicing what he's preaching - you are supposed to infer these meanings in your head thus deepening your experience of reading his posts! No more message board reactivity, down with the tyranny of sense!

 

[Jarpie]

Snippet from his newest post:

Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

C&C not essential? HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC!

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

We're specifically talking about RPGs like PE, not dungeon crawler. This is probably funniest thing he says:

The reactions should be on the NPC's (characters outside the players control for personality, background and backstory, etc.) but not from the PC. The world should react to what you do, NPCs (including companions you didn't design) should react to you... but the game shouldn't prescript your reactions.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

Too bad he hasn't meant it that way. But hey, maybe he's practicing what he's preaching - you are supposed to infer these meanings in your head thus deepening your experience of reading his posts! No more message board reactivity, down with the tyranny of sense!

Snippet from his newest post:

Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

C&C not essential? HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC!

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

We're specifically talking about RPGs like PE, not dungeon crawler. This is probably funniest thing he says:

The reactions should be on the NPC's (characters outside the players control for personality, background and backstory, etc.) but not from the PC. The world should react to what you do, NPCs (including companions you didn't design) should react to you... but the game shouldn't prescript your reactions.

Oh, right. I thought he meant that C&C isn't necessary to the genre as a whole.

Anyway, his idea of the world reacting around the PC is dumb and shitty and why Bethesduh game worlds are so flat and boring. The whole world standing still until your character moves a finger is retarded. It means that it's not a real world, but a world of puppets and you are the puppeteer. Sounds like this homo should stick to playing House with his Barbie dolls. That seems to be his ideal RPG.

 

[CrustyBot]

Why does he complain about romances, then?

Surely, if he wants the most compelling and amazingly written romance, he'd just imagine it instead of expecting one in the game, which reduces his ability to roleplay.



On some level, I understand his point, but not only is he confusing reactivity as a mechanic and design goal with ambiguity as a storytelling device, he's just gone completely with it. Might need the full post and context, though I suspect I'll need the brain bleach if I search it out.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...omance-thread-pt-3/page__st__100#entry1262135

Read this

Romance thread, still? Thought he was talking about something else (C&C). Fuck that. I already know I'll endure SAN loss if I read the full thing.

The post is not about romances, it's about "roleplaying", C&C and reactivity.

Fair enough.

You see: Protagonist/Character "roleplaying".
You see: Merin
You see: Sylvius the Mad
You lose: -5 SAN

I kind of get what he's driving at, and it's something they've hammered on the BSN as well. He's basically raging against BioWare auto-dialogue because it's a form of reactivity (choose the derp tone and get derp dialogue). "It's better to be intentionally ambiguous than to have the game retardedly trying to put words in your mouth", basically. He's saying that as long as he gets to define a character in dialogue and especially in character generation, it doesn't matter if the game recognizes it or not.

The problem lies in the fact that it's LARPing. I mean, I get clarity of dialogue options and I get lots of options in character generation to hone a character concept. It works out if it compliments fully fleshed out reactivity and narrative design, or if it's tied and integrated into the game mechanics and change your gameplay experience like Fallout's Traits, or Clan selection in Bloodlines. Even stuff like Darklands' occupation system is geared towards that end. The issue is that they're arguing for PC-centric imaginationland design as a central tenet for RPGs to be built on and replacing good C&C, when it's nothing more than ancillary, especially if it lacks said integration (NWN2 had a bit of this).

The natural conclusion of his viewpoint is that Oblivion - Roleplaying page.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Fair enough.

You see: Protagonist/Character "roleplaying".
You see: Merin
You see: Sylvius the Mad
You lose: -5 SAN

I kind of get what he's driving at, and it's something they've hammered on the BSN as well. He's basically raging against BioWare auto-dialogue because it's a form of reactivity (choose the derp tone and get derp dialogue). "It's better to be intentionally ambiguous than to have the game retardedly trying to put words in your mouth", basically. He's saying that as long as he gets to define a character in dialogue and especially in character generation, it doesn't matter if the game recognizes it or not.

The problem lies in the fact that it's LARPing. I mean, I get clarity of dialogue options and I get lots of options in character generation to hone a character concept. It works out if it compliments fully fleshed out reactivity and narrative design, or if it's tied and integrated into the game mechanics and change your gameplay experience like Fallout's Traits, or Clan selection in Bloodlines. Even stuff like Darklands' occupation system is geared towards that end. The issue is that they're arguing for PC-centric imaginationland design as a central tenet for RPGs to be built on and replacing good C&C, when it's nothing more than ancillary, especially if it lacks said integration (NWN2 had a bit of this).

The natural conclusion of his viewpoint is that Oblivion - Roleplaying page.

You are missing a point here crusty.

If you have to imagine the entire thing and the writer did NOT intend the part you just imagined, it is larping. Good writing takes care of implications and the effects of ambiguous interpretation there are INTENTIONAL not accidental or user induced.

 

[Jarpie]

Why does he complain about romances, then?

Surely, if he wants the most compelling and amazingly written romance, he'd just imagine it instead of expecting one in the game, which reduces his ability to roleplay.



On some level, I understand his point, but not only is he confusing reactivity as a mechanic and design goal with ambiguity as a storytelling device, he's just gone completely with it. Might need the full post and context, though I suspect I'll need the brain bleach if I search it out.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...omance-thread-pt-3/page__st__100#entry1262135

Read this

Romance thread, still? Thought he was talking about something else (C&C). Fuck that. I already know I'll endure SAN loss if I read the full thing.

The post is not about romances, it's about "roleplaying", C&C and reactivity.

Fair enough.

You see: Protagonist/Character "roleplaying".
You see: Merin
You see: Sylvius the Mad
You lose: -5 SAN

I kind of get what he's driving at, and it's something they've hammered on the BSN as well. He's basically raging against BioWare auto-dialogue because it's a form of reactivity (choose the derp tone and get derp dialogue). "It's better to be intentionally ambiguous than to have the game retardedly trying to put words in your mouth", basically. He's saying that as long as he gets to define a character in dialogue and especially in character generation, it doesn't matter if the game recognizes it or not.

The problem lies in the fact that it's LARPing. I mean, I get clarity of dialogue options and I get lots of options in character generation to hone a character concept. It works out if it compliments fully fleshed out reactivity and narrative design, or if it's tied and integrated into the game mechanics and change your gameplay experience like Fallout's Traits, or Clan selection in Bloodlines. Even stuff like Darklands' occupation system is geared towards that end. The issue is that they're arguing for PC-centric imaginationland design as a central tenet for RPGs to be built on and replacing good C&C, when it's nothing more than fluff.

The natural conclusion of his viewpoint is that Oblivion - Roleplaying page.

My sanity is probably already damaged beyond repair anyway so I can just try to break his mind and spirit.

 

[evdk]

My sanity is probably already damaged beyond repair anyway so I can just try to break his mind and spirit.

This supposes he has either.

 

[Captain Shrek]

My sanity is probably already damaged beyond repair anyway so I can just try to break his mind and spirit.

This supposes he has either.

 

[CrustyBot]

You are missing a point here crusty.

If you have to imagine the entire thing and the writer did NOT intend the part you just imagined, it is larping. Good writing takes care of implications and the effects of ambiguous interpretation there are INTENTIONAL not accidental or user induced.

Ahh. Here we come to the crux of the matter.

They're Biodrones, remember?



(You are right, but my mind is conditioned to think only of protagonist dialogue and generation options and not the story or events at large when I see the handle "Sylvius the Mad", so I kind of ignored all that.)

 

[Infinitron]

Cannot into originality http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61911-dd-bestiary/#entry1260834

I would like to see monsters that are familiar in name and appearance. Whether familiar because of nods to real-world source material or because they're staple fantasy fiction (yes, D&D) creatures.

Having said that, novel interpretations of existing fantasy creatures can be cool if done carefully.

Take an example: the Aumaua race has a name that is completely unfamiliar to me and might be completely made up (or not). That is a huge drawback for the race. I hope that the race has some familiar connection such as appearance since otherwise it's completely foreign.

It takes much more time to build in the player's mind a concept that is completely new with no reference points to existing knowledge. Player's have limited time and limited mental resources to dedicate to learning "new" monsters. A few new monsters are cool but populating your game completely without using existing monsters is wasteful, foolish, and harmful to player's ability to fully enjoy the game.

 

[Volrath]

"Limited mental resources"

 

[GarfunkeL]

That poster is very limited indeed. I hate that argument of "after a long day in the office and making dinner for the kids and putting them to bed, I only have an hour or two for gaming and I want to relax, not challenge myself", well, if that's the case, how about YOU PLAY FUCKING SOLITAIRE OR MAHJONG THEN?

 

[bminorkey]

YOU PLAY FUCKING SOLITAIRE OR MAHJONG THEN?

B-but those are p-pretty hard.

 

[Infinitron]

GarfunkeL
"But I want to be told a story!"

THEN READ A FUCKING BOOK

"But books don't have awesum graphics!"

THEN WATCH A FUCKING MOVIE

 

[villain of the story]

So, that quest is pretty much a playable NTR hentai.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61913-pc-as-a-fathermother-figure/

Not a terrible idea. The PC is usually the babby who gets lectured on by everyone else in the world, even though he's also usually more capable than them all. It's nice when he gets to teach and explain things to other characters.

No. Dragon Age did that and it sucked. Everyone was looking up to you, ready to break down in crying if you didn't nurtured them. Fuck that shit.

FNV did it right: characters were mature individuals who only occasionally asked you for your ideas.

 

[Balor]

That poster is very limited indeed. I hate that argument of "after a long day in the office and making dinner for the kids and putting them to bed, I only have an hour or two for gaming and I want to relax, not challenge myself", well, if that's the case, how about YOU PLAY FUCKING SOLITAIRE OR MAHJONG THEN?

Yea, while I'm slowly starting to understand this demographics (I'm getting damn old), this argument is simply stupid. There are like hundreds of casual games out there, from cheap flash to AAA titles, while hardcore games can be counted by fingers of a sloppy lumberjack.

 

[Scruffy]

That's true. Mood is a part of good quest design.

or a game can have great "mood" and still have some shit designed quests

 

[kris]

If you have to imagine the entire thing and the writer did NOT intend the part you just imagined, it is larping. Good writing takes care of implications and the effects of ambiguous interpretation there are INTENTIONAL not accidental or user induced.

I would call it fantasize. Just like I can fantasize my character got a space rodent on his shoulder in all the Bioware games I play. I can fantasize that many of the characters in Morrowind is really by best friends and when I go to the tavern we have a beer and talk.
I know "LARP" is a more insulting word you use, I just prefer a more apt one.

 

[Gerrard]

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

Dungeon crawlers are not RPGs.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Dungeon crawlers are not RPGs.

Despite the semi-troll, you are only partially right. Dungeon crawlers are not PERFECT RPGs. There is no reason WHATSOEVER that a dungeon crawler NOT have a good story. It is a failing and not a genre distinction.