| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Northchild
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 232
Location: New York, USA |
I had a blast in your game, Ekim... and I agree that there could have been more actual role-playing. If no-one's too discouraged, I'd love to play again some time. I'm also going through the tutorial/WBG and hope to make a module of my own someday soon so that I can entertain and mercilessly kil... er, I mean, *delight* the players.
@ Xen
I recall chuckling when a few party members decided that chests laying around in the wilderness must be inherently harmless. I did my fair share of running after you guys as well, until everyone just started hanging out on corners and smoking cigarettes. Maybe we need to appoint someone to be behind the wheel, or to at least to call attention to said wheel, (the character that I was playing was probably *not* the best choice for that role). 
@mDrop
Don't know if this is an issue for you, but the reason that I often have trouble paying as much attention to the story in NWN is that I don't have to. I'm guessing that if I decided not to read a word of dialogue or backstory and clicked dialogue options randomly, I'd be able to do finish the game as well as if I paid very close attention to everything.
Before anyone jumps on me and calls for the revocation of my role-playing license, I want to stress that I really do sit down at this PC with the intent of being mindful and enjoying the journey rather than worrying about the destination. That doesn't work as well when I'm tired, when the section of the game that I'm in doesn't really "need" my character for one reason or another, when things draw on too long, when the game happens to be just good old-fashioned boring, when I've just gotten off of a Jedi Knight 2 bender, when I'm worried about whether or not I sent the check for school taxes, and so on.
I'm rambling. Given opportunity and practice, I'm sure that we can all reach some sort of harmony. I take heart because I know that RPing with others is good when it works. Thanks again all. |
Fri Jul 05, 2002 10:01 am |
|
|
Gig
Southern Spirit
Joined: 20 Feb 2002
Posts: 3226
Location: NFG Headquarters |
I always walk in NWN. If I run then my rogue crashes into traps before detecting them.
_________________
''Perhaps I'm old and tired but I always think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied. Look at me: I design coastlines. I got an award for Norway.''--Slartibartfast |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 3:22 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Northchild
Don't know if this is an issue for you, but the reason that I often have trouble paying as much attention to the story in NWN is that I don't have to. I'm guessing that if I decided not to read a word of dialogue or backstory and clicked dialogue options randomly, I'd be able to do finish the game as well as if I paid very close attention to everything.
I couldn't agree more with you NC. I have the same feeling in the single player experience in NWN. Still, the conversations are often interesting enough that I want to read everything and I try to discipline myself and play in-character when dialoguing with NPCs. But you're right, often times you get the feeling that you'll still get the quest and you'll still end the game no matter what you say. And if you make a bad choice and give the wrong answer, you can still come back to the NPC and start up the conversation again.
As for multi-player, I think we all want to make the experience better. This was our very first outing together, and I'm happy in knowing (or hoping) it won't be our last, and that it can only get better with time. We're all learning. As I said before, we're still caught in this "Diablo Syndrome" of ours, and we'll soon learn to relaxe a bit to smell the roses 
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 3:31 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
Still, the conversations are often interesting enough that I want to read everything and I try to discipline myself and play in-character when dialoguing with NPCs.
I find NPCs in NWN talk too much. They just babble on and on about stuff I really don't care about. I really try hard to keep to my character. I really do. But 50-70% of the dialog options I get are never in line with what I think my character should say at this time. BG like games always had this problem for me. Unless you are lawful good or chaotic evil there is just no good answer for you.
For example, my first char I picked was true neutral (or was it chaotic neutral--I forget). Generally, the choices I get in dialogs are "I'll help you without thinking about it twice!", "what's in it for me?", "not interested." My character is neutral rogue for a reason. And that reason is to not stick your nose in places it don't belong. And especially not let others stick it where it don't belong. Therefore, I will not bend over for some hero just because they tell me so. But I also won't tell them "how much?" either! That's what intelligence and charisma are for! Neutral characters don't go around pissing off people by asking them how much will they pay, no matter the task. They are neutral. They shut up when there is nothing smart to be said. I'm yet to see a dialog option that allows me to stay silent.
About DMing MP. Perhaps our aspiring DMs can find ways to punish people that don't RP "properly." Like, if someone runs off on their own just looking for some loot or something to kill... drop 10 monsters on him. Or have a bigfoot come out of the forrest, kill them, then run off back into the forrest. People that don't pay attention to the NPC dialog options should click on something wrong and should get their attributes drained for making the NPC mad. There should be a lot more deadly traps around, trully requiring a rogue for protection. The problem is, if you try and force people into doing it right, they may leave because they feel opressed. Prolly the best thing would be to just tell people this is a "true" RP server and if they don't like it leave. If they keep messing it up, kick them. Eventually, people will start "getting it" and will come for more if that's their thing. If not, well, you're better off without them.
_________________
(@) |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 3:54 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
For example, my first char I picked was true neutral (or was it chaotic neutral--I forget). Generally, the choices I get in dialogs are "I'll help you without thinking about it twice!", "what's in it for me?", "not interested." My character is neutral rogue for a reason. And that reason is to not stick your nose in places it don't belong. And especially not let others stick it where it don't belong. Therefore, I will not bend over for some hero just because they tell me so. But I also won't tell them "how much?" either! That's what intelligence and charisma are for! Neutral characters don't go around pissing off people by asking them how much will they pay, no matter the task. They are neutral. They shut up when there is nothing smart to be said. I'm yet to see a dialog option that allows me to stay silent.
Umm... is it just me or I think you have a slight misconception of alignments in D&D? Neutral characters are not about not sticking their noses in other people's affairs. Their about sticking their noses there if they have good personal reasons to do it. If a situation works to the advantage of a Neutral person, they will do it. If they don't have any personal gains to be had from helping someone, then they will not help.
So, in your example, a neutral character would answer a plea for help with: "What's in it for me?". Often times this answer is mistakenly identified as an "evil" type of answer, but it's not. An evil type answer would be something like: "Go to hell, you're getting on my nerves", followed by a nasty backstab. I haven't played NWN with an evil character to a good extent yet, so I don't know if it's reflected in dialogies, but so far I haven't seen this type of answer by playing a Neutral good char.
A neutral character is all about personal gains and advancement or advantages. Neutral Good chars will do things that are personally adantageous to themselves, as long as the said task is within the general conceptions of goodness. Killing someone for gold might not be very appealing to a neutral good char, unless the victim has commited an injustice and the gold will go in the pocket of the NG character. Same goes for Neutral evil, but on the evil perspective of things. Chaotic neutral are the most dangerous, in my opinion. They will commit any act of any kind as long as they gain something from it for themselves. Within a group, these are very selfish people who might decide not to help in a battle if they don't think it'll be beneficial to themselves. True Neutral chars are like judges. True Neutral is probably the hardest to play. And far be it for me to even try to describe them because I never quite know what to expect from a True Neutral character. They're like judges who side with those who have the facts, but won't get involved unless they have good reason to be.
And by the way, yes Neutral chars often end up pissing people off because often times you don't know where they'll side, and that's what the neutral alignment is all about.
Thought I'd clear that up And, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going by ear here...
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 4:41 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
Thought I'd clear that up And, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going by ear here...
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, you just proved my point 2 lines above:
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
...They're like judges who side with those who have the facts, but won't get involved unless they have good reason to be.
Exactly why I picked a neutral char. He's a street rogue. Kinnda like a street urchin. Full of street smarts. And one of those street smarts is to know when to get involved and when not. What your argument tried to justify is that money is always a good reason to get involved. I'm trying to point out that it's not. There is no money that someone can pay me (my char) to go steal something from a high level wizard. When you're dead, all the money in the world is quite pointless. So, if soemone comes to me and tells me that in order to save the world, I need to go steal a medallion from this wizard, I'd like more conversation choices than just "in the name of all things holy, I'll do it!", "well, what's in it for me?" and "look an evil monster behind you!*backstab*"
Also, whenever I read descriptions of neutral chars (that's good/evil neutral kind, not lawful/chaotic), they never explain neutrality as people who are out there only for their own benefit. People who can't be bothered by politics are neutral (regardless of their benefit in it). People who believe in universal balance are neutral (regardless of monetary profit). Etc. There is a lot more to neutrality than just profit. Besides, you can profit a lot more as an evil alignment (which actually states that it is all about personal gain).
_________________
(@) |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 7:33 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
Well, maybe you're right, I won't argue. But sounds to me like you want things a bit more open ended, and then you should seek a DM'ed game, because in your view of things then you are right in saying the game dialogues don't offer enough to you.
Still, it sounds to me like you prefer playing Neutral characters. If that's the case, and seeing from what you envision your choices should be, then how would someone (even a DM) entice you to get into a quest? I mean, if you would refuse it because it's not enough money, or too much risk, how could anyone make it worth your while in adventuring? It sounds like there would always be a reason for you not to take the quest because you stated that a neutral character doesn't want to stick his nose into anyone else's business. In any game, any story, you have to bend your ethos a little, and let yourself see some kind of personal gain that make it worth your while within the type of game you play. In this case, it's the money simply because the NPCs mostly offer you money for completing certain tasks.
So anyway, my quetsion really is: How could a DM satisfy you (or any Neutral character that follows your definition) into getting into his/her adventure?
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:43 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
By making it their business.
Perhaps agents of the evil wizard saw his char talking to the NPC and they decide to attack him and the NPC. That would make it his business.
Or, if they have a good background you can pull something like that into it. For instance, a family member or friend has been pulled into the plot of the wizard (say, as a henchman) and the neutral char decides to get involved to help their friend. They could do that by either rescuing them from their stupidity or joining them.
There are several possiblities.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Sat Jul 06, 2002 3:26 am |
|
|
Northchild
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 232
Location: New York, USA |
I prefer playing neutral characters as well. Torment, for example, made it easy to play neutral characters. |
|
Sat Jul 06, 2002 12:55 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Val pointed out some good ways. But as far as I'm concerned, even just a neutral char saying "sorry, but the risks are too great" and the NPCs going on an explanation about the end of the world and all things in it, would do it. It's nice that my char won't fight a wizard for fear of getting turned into a toad, but if there is no world afterwards, being a toad is possibly better than that. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining or saying how it all sux. I'm just saying that they put so much text in the game, but then when it comes down to it, the choices are generally ultra good, mildly bad and stupid. It just seems like a waste to me. A lot of effort for a very little payoff.
I remember when I played Fallout (2), I never felt that the choices given me were wrong. In fact, sometimes they were so witty and funny that I never thought of saying something like that myself, and the moment I saw them, I was like "yeah! that's my answer!" 
It just irks me, that's all.
--Edit--
Oh, and the next thing that irks me are the actual choices of actions in the game. Being neutral just isn't rewarding. E.g. remember in NWN, in the prison district, you find those civilians on the street? Your conversation choices with them are to escort them to the district gate, tell them to go there on their own carefully, or rob them. If you chose the third, it would make sense to kill them as well once you're done (for RP purposes). Well, as it turns out, the first choice (escort) give you 50xp and +3 to your alignment. The last choice gives xp from killing them and some loot possibly. And the middle choice (which is kindda neutral) gives you absolutely nothing. Bias?
_________________
(@) |
|
Sat Jul 06, 2002 4:12 pm |
|
|
irritantnumber6
Village Leader
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 93
|
< set obsequiously complimentary tone toward mDrop = true >
Very good points, mDrop. I've fought the urge to go quicker, too. I have been much better about reading all the books during NWN than I have in many previous games.
One of the (many) things I like so much about Bioware's cycle of D&D games is that, in general, they give you dialog that's actually worth reading. (Compared to, say, a Might and Magic game -- I LOVE M&M, but I don't play it for the dialog!)
I've never played P&PD&D, and I've never read any of the novels, either. But after eight games set in the same universe, it really feels like a real place to me.
Here's my comment on the Neutral discussion -- I guess I'm just a closet boy scout, because I always end up making "good" decisions. They just seem the most satisfying to me in an RPG. My rogue assassin began as chaotic neutral, and after one too many good deeds he became chaotic good. I guess I just find it satisfying in a game to be "helpful." |
|
Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:18 am |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Oh, and the next thing that irks me are the actual choices of actions in the game. Being neutral just isn't rewarding. E.g. remember in NWN, in the prison district, you find those civilians on the street? Your conversation choices with them are to escort them to the district gate, tell them to go there on their own carefully, or rob them. If you chose the third, it would make sense to kill them as well once you're done (for RP purposes). Well, as it turns out, the first choice (escort) give you 50xp and +3 to your alignment. The last choice gives xp from killing them and some loot possibly. And the middle choice (which is kindda neutral) gives you absolutely nothing. Bias?
Explanations are good enough for me As far as trying to involve neutral characters in a quest, I think Val put it best, and I'm taking notes.
Concerning the neutrality issue and XP. Yes, it might look as bias, but here's the thing that bugs me though. How could a DM give you XP for not getting involved? Sure it's your alignment. You alignment dictates that you shouldn'T get involved, but should that then give you XP? In your example, you get XP points for getting involved in either one way or another (helping the guy to get to the gates, or robbing him blind and then killing him). But how could you be given XP points for telling the guy to leave and make it on his own? That's just hard for me to understand. In my point of view, the system is not biased. It's very hard for a computer to gage if you're actions are truly neutral in nature.
But I do agree that sometimes the conversation choices you are given may not reflect all possible ethic choices you may want depending on your alignment.
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Jul 10, 2002 3:27 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Ekim...
I've been thinking about this actively, while playing, since I posted here originally. And I've come to realize the predicament that the developers are in. In your last post you somewhat hinted at it. How do you reward, nothingness. As far as computers are concerned, how do you say, that doing nothing was a good choice and you give xp for it? Right now, I don't have any good explanation. Perhaps, we should get xp for doing actions consistent with our alignment. So, if you are a neutral (good/evil) character, then making choices that are deemed neutral will give you xp. Even if the choice is neutral.
What I DID notice and come up with is best explained as a reply to this:
quote:
Originally posted by irritantnumber6
Here's my comment on the Neutral discussion -- I guess I'm just a closet boy scout, because I always end up making "good" decisions. They just seem the most satisfying to me in an RPG. My rogue assassin began as chaotic neutral, and after one too many good deeds he became chaotic good. I guess I just find it satisfying in a game to be "helpful."
I thought so too for a while. Then a realization dawned upon me. The game will NEVER move your aligment towards neutral. It will only move it towards good or evil. Meaning, the game mechanics explicitly define neutrality as an equal amount of good and evil actions. I've also noticed that the game is much quicker to give you + alignment than it is to give you - alignment. Especially if you don't want to go around slaughtering everybody you come across.
What I would really like to see, is that the game becomes neutral sensitive as well. If you make a choice that is neutral, the game should shift your alignment towards neutral (50). Meaning, if you are over 50, it should substract points and if you are under 50 (leaning towards evil) it should add points.
Come to think of it, how about always assigning xp modified by your alignment? That would be quest xp, not monster xp. If the choices are good, evil and neutral, you can compute how distant the choices are from your alignemnt and that number should be percentage of xp substracted from your gain. So, 100% good characters would get 100% xp for doing 100% good deeds. Also, all choices don't need to have 0, 50 and 100 values. So, just accepting money given to you by the NPC for the job well done could have a value of 70, while giving the money back and saying it was your duty to do it has value of 100, trying to talk them into giving you more has value of 40 and intimidating them into giving you more has value of 10. Killing them and robbing their corpse, of course, has value of 0. (These values would be aligment values.) Then if the task is worth 100xp, a paladin with alignment of good(100) would get 100xp for returning money, 70xp for accepting the money, 40xp for asking for more, etc. A neutral(50) rogue would get 50xp for returning the money, 80xp taking the money, 90xp for asking for more, etc. Evil(0) sorcerer would get 0xp for returning the money, 30xp for taking the money, 60xp for asking for more, etc. You get the picture.
I wonder if this could be implemented...
_________________
(@) |
|
Wed Jul 10, 2002 4:30 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Then if the task is worth 100xp, a paladin with alignment of good(100) would get 100xp for returning money, 70xp for accepting the money, 40xp for asking for more, etc. A neutral(50) rogue would get 50xp for returning the money, 80xp taking the money, 90xp for asking for more, etc. Evil(0) sorcerer would get 0xp for returning the money, 30xp for taking the money, 60xp for asking for more, etc. You get the picture.
I wonder if this could be implemented...
Very nice ideas in there. Unfortunately, I don't think it could be implemented, unless they hard code this rule in the game code itself. Because in reality, if you've played around with the toolset a bit, you would quickly see that it is possible to do something like this within the dialogues, rewarding players depending on their alignment. But, it would take such a lengthy time to do for only one converstaion that it's almost impossible. You would have to make three seperate set of choices for every basic alignment, that would give out different amounts of XP for a given response. It would all be much too complicated, unless it was hard coded in the rule set of the game, as I allready said.
And there's this problem of responses too. Usually, a response that has you saying that you're not interested always leave you free to come back later and ask about it again if your interests change about a certain proposed task. If you were to give out XP for a neutral player to say that he's not interested, what would stop him from coming back again and again to tell the NPC he's not interested and getting that xp  . Even if you code it so that only a neutral player can get this xp, it would be very abusable (is that a word?). I don't think that's your point, but I'm just raising a little "iffy" spot in this whole theory. I don't think computers can do a good enough job at being a DM yet to be safe from that, and that's why they don't make it so that doing nothing or staying away from a conflict gives you xp.
As for why it is usually easier to gain points in Good than it is in Evil, is simple to explain. Since this is a marketing world, and publishers are there to make as much money by trying to offend the least amount of people, they will ask that evil actions be toned down and less rewarded simply because parents could complain that an evil way of living is glorified. I know, it sounds cheesy, but everything revolves around this. Like when people around here started asking why there were no kids running around in Morrowind's world, saying they thought it was stupid. Well, the cold matter of fact is that the publisher doesn't want amother finding her 13yo kid somewhere in Alaska running around killing other kids for "fun" in their game because that will mean they have to wipe off a lawsuit from the angry mother, and maybe a whole community. So, Bioware subtly tones down the "evil" factor by making it less rewarding so you won't feel compelled to act evil. Anyway, that's how I view things.
When making your own module, it's easy to reward evil as much, or even more than good if that's how you see fit. But by then it's not Bioware's problem anymore since the person making the module acted out on their own accord. 
But this discussion is very nice because I like to make modules, and in all honesty I think neutrality is often left out in rewarding players. And looking for ways to include that type of player character in a quest or getting him/her involved is very challenging when preparing conversation trees. Again, you brought up some good points and I am taking notes
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:50 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
But, it would take such a lengthy time to do for only one converstaion that it's almost impossible. You would have to make three seperate set of choices for every basic alignment, that would give out different amounts of XP for a given response. It would all be much too complicated, unless it was hard coded in the rule set of the game, as I allready said.
I think you slightly misunderstand what I was getting at. Each choice would have an aligment value. I'm sure you can somehow attach that to a choice in the script. This value would be somewhere from 0-100. And when you chose that, the xp you would get is:
given xp = total xp * abs(your alignment - dialog choice alignment) / 100
Which means that further the choice you made from your alignment, less xp you get (but your alignment should shift due to the choice though).
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
And there's this problem of responses too. Usually, a response that has you saying that you're not interested always leave you free to come back later and ask about it again if your interests change about a certain proposed task.
This is under the current system. There can certainly be an "exit" option which allows you to postpone the choice for a point later in time. Again, there need not be a "neutral" dialog option. Some dialogs can be catch 22 type.
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
Since this is a marketing world, and publishers are there to make as much money by trying to offend the least amount of people, they will ask that evil actions be toned down and less rewarded simply because parents could complain that an evil way of living is glorified. I know, it sounds cheesy, but everything revolves around this. Like when people around here started asking why there were no kids running around in Morrowind's world, saying they thought it was stupid.
Fallout 2 comes to mind. Even though "evil path" was not as apparent, neither was the "good" one. That game strived on shades of grey. We were all just shades of neutrality. I know that your reputation eventually went through the roof and all, but if you shot a citizen in a town, the whole town would go hostile on you regardless. But I think what made it more acceptable to do minor evil actions in F2 was the atmosphere. And the world. In NWN, I just can't see myself killing a character just because my alignment went too high and I want it lower. Can you imagine anything more anti-RP than that? And killing the bad guys will end up raising your alignment. Yet, you won't be given a choice if you wanna kill the bad guy. He'll just jump on you and the only way out is to kill him (unless they are mission critical NPCs that surrender when low on hp). I somehow feel that there is way too little alignment movement (or judgement of your actions rather). And the little that they put in is way too biased towards good. BTW, F2 didn't have children in the UK version. Supposedly because some laws in UK forbid violence against children in video games. And since you could kill children in F2... Perhaps the same was true for MW.
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
When making your own module, it's easy to reward evil as much, or even more than good if that's how you see fit. But by then it's not Bioware's problem anymore since the person making the module acted out on their own accord.
Hmm... Perhaps one of these days when I try my hand at module making I'll see if I can toss something together to serve as a system I proposed above.
_________________
(@) |
|
Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:43 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
