Interview Tim Cain speaks on Temple of Elemental Evil

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Temple of Elemental Evil; Tim Cain; Troika Games

<b>Tim Cain</b> of <a href="http://www.troikagames.com">Troika Games</a> has finally been allowed to break his silence to <a href="http://gamespot.com/">GameSpot</a> in <a href="http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2902161,00.html">this interview</a> covering various aspects of <b>Temple of Elemental Evil</b>.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>GS:</b> What's been involved in converting Greyhawk to the 3rd Edition system? Are there particular elements of the module that have made it into the game and work well in a computer RPG and not others?
<br>
<br>
<b>TC:</b> We have to convert all of the monsters, spells, items and NPCs to the new system. Fortunately, most of the spells are the same, but skills and feats have had to been selected by hand for each NPC. But the nice part about 3rd edition is its ability to individualize NPCs and monsters, so many of the exceptional characters in the module who were extending or even breaking rules of 1st edition were not difficult to translate into 3rd edition rules.
<br>
<br>
I'd say the best part of 3rd edition as translated into a computer RPG is the extensive use we make of the non-combat skills and feats. The dialog skills such as Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate were easy to incorporate into Troika's dialog system, which already made use of stats and skills to offer different dialog options to the player. It feels good to spend skill points in non-combat skills that actually matter during game play.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Speech skills are always a plus.
<br>
<br>
Thanks for the heads up, <b>Tim Cain</b>!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh sweet merciful Judas. This is one to keep my focus on.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

It's, it's so..........so...........so BEAUTIFUL!
THANK YOU GOD!
Wait.
The link is broken.
YOU LIAR!
YOU FILTHY LIAR, PLAYING WITH MY FEELINGS LIKE THAT!

 

[Spazmo]

This is kind of wierd as GameSpot themselves have yet to post this on the front page.

But anyways: Hooray! More Tim Cain goodness! Now if only we knew what Leonard Boyarsky is working on...

He told us in great detail...about the nonlinear story structure...

Glee!

We completely support the evil player character!

Joy!

I'd say the best part of 3rd Edition as translated into a computer RPG is the extensive use we make of the noncombat skills and feats. The dialogue skills such as diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate were easy to incorporate into Troika's dialogue system, which already made use of stats and skills to offer different dialogue options to the player. It feels good to spend skill points in noncombat skills that actually matter during gameplay.

Huzzah!

I am still eyeing the Against the Giants series as something to tackle next.

W00t!

Every quest has multiple solutions, some through combat and some through dialogue using the various skills you can buy in the game.

Happy happy joy joy!

we have added the concept of multiple-start games, which we call vignettes. Depending on your alignment, your starting location changes, and your ultimate reason for coming to Hommlet and eventually to the Temple of Elemental Evil is different.

Me like!

Evil characters should not be portrayed as merely greedy or selfish but as actively promoting their agenda of self-interest. One of our evil starting vignettes provides an extremely plausible reason of the evil players to explore the Hommlet area and to pursue their diabolical goals.

The man spews truth from every orifice!

For example, if the player makes a lawful evil party, he can still do the quest to rescue the little girl, but he may ask for extra money once he finds her, if he bothers to return her at all (perhaps she'd be better to use as trap fodder and remember, traps yield experience points in 3rd edition). Or a good party cannot parley with a demon and ask it to join forces with them, which an evil party can try to do (at their own risk, of course).

I've run out of words for happiness!

We have kept turn-based combat, which should make us quite different than most of the other D&D computer games.

OH HELL YES

If you skip the side quests and dialogues, you can probably make it through in 30 hours, but that's just a guess.

And it'll be real long, too!

We even added some jaunty hats.

Well, that's just gravy.

GS: When is the game scheduled to be finished?

TC: June 2003 is our target.

Only six months to wait!

Oh, I'm getting really excited about this one! My two favorite things in the RPG domain coming together at last! And in turn-based combat! Pardon my euphoria, but this is the best gaming news I've had since I heard about Arcanum!

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Well, the site is up.
Thanks Tim, now I have to change my underpants.
Good god.
While the only expirence with 3rd Ed I have had is NwN, I cannot be nothing but stupified.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Man, this sounds even better than I was hoping. Maybe seeing what real designers can do with D&D will shut all the Bioware fanboys up this time. I kind of wonder about that date, though, if Arcanum is any indication we'll be lucky to get it before 2005.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Man, this sounds even better than I was hoping. Maybe seeing what real designers can do with D&D will shut all the Bioware fanboys up this time. I kind of wonder about that date, though, if Arcanum is any indication we'll be lucky to get it before 2005.

Nah, the BioWare fanboys will probably bitch about the fact it's turn based(OMFG, just like D&D is!) or there's not enough combat and multiplayer ACSHUN.

I like what he said about alignment and party make up, though. If you're going to have a fixed alignment system, then you shouldn't allow Paladins and Barbarians running around together. A Paladin would end up EXTREMELY annoyed with a chaotic acting barbarian.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

S: Are there any plans for multiplayer support? Will Troika release user editing tools as you did with Arcanum?

TC: No, this time around we are focusing all of our effort on a single-player game. There are no plans for either multiplayer support or user-created modules for Greyhawk.

That probably means that i will be unable to mod this game .

 

[evilmonkey]

Joy!

mmm vignettes - I've wanted multiple starting locations for so long...

Multiple Soultions

Proper Evil characters

Speech skill... - Diplomacy, bluff add Intimidate.

30 hours without the side quests

nonlinear story

*drools*

ARR!

thanks Tim, I WUB U!

 

[Vikjunk]

I’ve always said that I would like to see a D&D CRPG done right and it looks like Tim is giving me just that... :D

 

[Jed]

Gosh, I dunno. I'm concerned that the best part of D&D will be missing: ph4t l3wt! I just can't adventure without at least a +12 Munchkin-Slaying Vorpal Shoelace...

Jed

 

[huh]

whoa, righteous stuff. if it comes off even as half as good as he says, this is a proof that the mundane *can* be turned into gold (sorry folks, NWN has really turned me off D&D for a while).

 

[chrisbeddoes]

Well i definetly want this game

GS: When is the game scheduled to be finished?

TC: June 2003 is our target.

I hope it is ready by 2004 :wink:

 

[Insane-Lark]

Sounds good to me. I'd like the opportunity to get down with my evil self.
If it's even half as good as I hope it may make D&D worth another look.
Yes!

 

[Jarinor]

Turn-based combat only. Good. Create five characters. Good. Pick up other characters. Good. Create new characters midway through (after dumping the previous one). Very good.

This is going on my list of games to get.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Man, this sounds even better than I was hoping. Maybe seeing what real designers can do with D&D will shut all the Bioware fanboys up this time. I kind of wonder about that date, though, if Arcanum is any indication we'll be lucky to get it before 2005.

Nah, the BioWare fanboys will probably bitch about the fact it's turn based(OMFG, just like D&D is!) or there's not enough combat and multiplayer ACSHUN.

Yeah, a lot probably will. Maybe some will feel the irrestistible urge to buy anything marked D&D and then see there are other possibilities, though. Though I do remember getting in an argument on the Bioboards a while back when responding to someone who claimed D&D was always meant to be played in real-time. Sad thing is, he was one of their employees.

I like what he said about alignment and party make up, though. If you're going to have a fixed alignment system, then you shouldn't allow Paladins and Barbarians running around together. A Paladin would end up EXTREMELY annoyed with a chaotic acting barbarian.

Yeah, I'm more excited about this idea than anything. I don't know if I've ever seen it implemented like he's describing, but it sounds really interesting to let the player choose the party's general alignment and then the game responds to that. Something that might be even more interesting is if it would allow the party to change over time, like an evil party grows to loathe all the evil they're surrounded by and gradually becomes more good or a good-aligned party gets seduced or corrupted and becomes more evil. I love the idea of a pre-game introduction for the characters, too. It all sounds a lot like real PnP role-playing as opposed to what you usually see in CRPGs. I think you could still have a paladin and barbarian if you picked Neutral Good as your party's alignment, though. You could probably even have a paladin and a TN character. It would be a nice touch if it caused internal friction, though.

S: Are there any plans for multiplayer support? Will Troika release user editing tools as you did with Arcanum?

TC: No, this time around we are focusing all of our effort on a single-player game. There are no plans for either multiplayer support or user-created modules for Greyhawk.

That probably means that i will be unable to mod this game.

I'm actually grateful for this. It sounds like they've learned from their mistakes and aren't going to try to please everyone this time. They just want to make a solid, nice-looking, single-player, turn-based RPG. I don't think the pre-rendered backgrounds would really lend it to modding, anyway.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yeah, a lot probably will. Maybe some will feel the irrestistible urge to buy anything marked D&D and then see there are other possibilities, though. Though I do remember getting in an argument on the Bioboards a while back when responding to someone who claimed D&D was always meant to be played in real-time. Sad thing is, he was one of their employees.

He's definitely a fool then, considering there's a lot of things about D&D combat that just don't work in real time.

Case in point. Say you're a magic caster. You cast a one turn casting time spell with your dagger in hand and you've got your Combat Reflexes.

In turn based, you cast the spell. Bam, it hits an orc. That orc walks up to you in his turn, triggering your Attack of Opportunity. You stab orc, yay!

In real time, while you're in the casting mode, the orc walks up on you. Well, you're busy casting, right? You can't just simply stop casting for that swing on your AoO, so chances are, you don't get one there. You have a divergent outcome here.

Any dumbass that says D&D was ment to be real time is just freaking stupid. This is definitely the case with the mechanics of 3E combat, which is what the above example is all about. It's too rooted in the sequential nature of turn based to impliment it fully in real time.

Then again, it doesn't shock me that something that utterly moronic would come out of a BioWare developer's mouth, since we had that one BioWare gimp say that NWN was turn based.

Yeah, I'm more excited about this idea than anything. I don't know if I've ever seen it implemented like he's describing, but it sounds really interesting to let the player choose the party's general alignment and then the game responds to that. Something that might be even more interesting is if it would allow the party to change over time, like an evil party grows to loathe all the evil they're surrounded by and gradually becomes more good or a good-aligned party gets seduced or corrupted and becomes more evil.

Well, he said the problem with that would be the intent of the action that leads to the shift. Tracking intent is fairly difficult. Even tracking Lawful/Chaotic stuff can be tricky.

I love the idea of a pre-game introduction for the characters, too. It all sounds a lot like real PnP role-playing as opposed to what you usually see in CRPGs. I think you could still have a paladin and barbarian if you picked Neutral Good as your party's alignment, though. You could probably even have a paladin and a TN character. It would be a nice touch if it caused internal friction, though.

Yup, that's true. Then again, I think the restrictions should be raised if there's a paladin in the party to just one space away from LG. A lawful evil character, assuming you go with lawful neutral, isn't going to be put up with by a paladin any more than a chaotic good barbarian.

 

[HanoverF]

We use alignment as a means for the player to state, "This is my alignment, this is how I intend to act, so give me the option to act this way." Many role-playing games have tried to do the reverse, by seeing how the player acts and then stating, "What you did was evil. You are now evil." The problem with that method is there is no way to know the player's intent. We support alignment by requiring the player to choose an overall alignment for his party, and subsequently only choosing individual character alignments that are at most one step away from this alignment. So chaotic evil player characters can mix with chaotic neutrals or neutral evil, but not with lawful good characters.

For example, if the player makes a lawful evil party, he can still do the quest to rescue the little girl, but he may ask for extra money once he finds her, if he bothers to return her at all (perhaps she'd be better to use as trap fodder, and remember, traps yield experience points in 3rd Edition). Or a good party cannot parley with a demon and ask it to join forces with them, which an evil party can try to do (at their own risk, of course).

Does this mean that Evil or Good characters loose options for quests that would be out of character, or they gain specialized options that are in chacter, both, neither?

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Troika Games - high quality, ZERO innovation.

GS: Compared to recent RPGs, what do you think will be most unique about Greyhawk?

TC: I think Greyhawk captures the essence of a good D&D game--exciting combat, caches of treasure, interesting and detailed NPCs, and lots of ways to customize your character--for both the novice and the hard-core player alike. Most of all, it's fun, and that's what's important.

Actually, it sounds more like "Baldur's Gate" with turn-based combat.

Game shipping in June? They are aware that summer is the time of the worst sales during the year, right? But don't you worry - they will shift the release date to October, and still manage to have shitload of bugs in it (I am still waiting for that next Arcanum patch that will let me play in accelerated mode on a fucking INDUSTRY-STANDARD GE-FORCE 2 CARD).

Oh, I'm positive the game will have a top-notch quality in it, excellent design and whatever. Question is, do you need another D&D game?

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Wohoo.
This will be FUN.
Okay, first off-
The different starting points. Need I mention this? Your characters start at different places depending on your alignment (or other factors, not sure).
Second, the game has completely different endings.
Thirdly the fact that you can play an evil character
Fourthly the fact that your party cannot include members from all the different alignments.
Fifthly, it is using the 3rd Ed
Do we need another D&D game? What kind of question is that?
Inbred cannot even really be considered D&D, when you get right down to it.

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Okay, let me rephrase it - what's the point in playing another D&D game? Fun? What is so fun about it?

 

[Spazmo]

Well, we've known for while that Tim Cain's next game would be standard high fantasy (and believe me--you don't get any more standard high fantsy than Greyhawk) because he's never done anything like that before and that's what he wants to do.

And you're right. It's not the setting that's really exciting. It's not the rules, either, although I do quite like D&D 3E. It's what Tim Cain will do with it.

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Well I suppose I will buy it once it will go down in price from $49.99 to ten bucks... I don't know who will be doing backgrounds, hopefully not Boyarsky, and I wish it wouldn't require a player to read a gigantic rules book to play it, or take ten CDs.

I wonder whether they're going to use the same AP-based system as they did in Arcanum...

 

[HanoverF]

Actually, it sounds more like "Baldur's Gate" with turn-based combat.

What? What article were you reading?

I think Greyhawk captures the essence of a good D&D game

Sounding nothing like Baldurs Gate so far

exciting combat

None of that in Baldurs Gate, it all fell into boring dull or grossly outmatched variety, neither of wich are exciting

interesting and detailed NPCs

None of those in BG

and lots of ways to customize your character

Unless hes talking about character class and what weapons/armor you can use this doesn't apply to BG

Most of all, it's fun

Deffinetly cant apply that to BG

caches of treasure

Ok maybe thats it, yep, they both have treasue, they must be the same friggen game, damn you Troika!

do you need another D&D game?

Well no one needs any computer game at all. I haven't bought a D&D game (without returning it) since Planescape (tho I only played it once, maybe I should have returned it too) so I'm ready for a good D&D game.

 

[Spazmo]

APs? They're using D&D Third Edition, which uses an entirely different system to determine combat actions.

To summarise, as you gain levels, you gain more attacks per round. As for other actions like spells or using items, you can do so once a round. Movement depends on your speed statistic, which represents the number of feet per round you can move, and whether or not you're running, charging, walking, etc. A combat round lasts six seconds and ten of them make a turn. Turns are relevant because some spells take a full turn to cast.