22 réponses à ce sujet

[nicethugbert]

Often in RPGs the game mechanics tend to get in the way of the story and break immersion, crafting is typically guilty of this.  The more open the world the worse the problem.  Many story elements imply if not outright state a sensitivity to time and a need for dedication, even if there is no actual time mechanism of any kind.  But, you can go off and collect rat giblets and make oceans of rat giblet stew of might, even do other quests.  Just the existence of any type of power scaling or leveling proves to be problematic, the larger the level or power range the worse.  Also, some characters imply certain types of activity either because of their game mechanics or text description.  Yet, this potential often goes unfullfilled.

So, I have an idea or two to help solve these problems.  Include some sort of trainer in the game.  The trainers could be some type of advisor figure, like a Yoda.  Spell caster npcs are especially good for this.  

For instance, Dreams or Trances, an npc may have the power to help you explore your experiences through dreams or trances.  So the party could enter a dream or trance state where they fight some creatures.  The creature they fight would be composed of their knowledge and experience.  So, the more knowledge and experience(not experience points specifically) that the party accumulates, the more accurate their trance/dream is.  So, collecting information, not just rat giblets, becomes quest material.  And that is NEAT! because information is immensely more story friendly than rat giblets.  In fact, information and story are the same.  Hmm, hags are associated with dreams, aren't they?

This could be augmented with zoo keepers that have an arena where you may gain knowledge by fighting actual monsters or simply augment your trances/dreams with their close proximity or harmless body samples like shed hair, fur, skin, oil, saliva, droppings, etc.

Placing an emphasis on information as progess also makes information related classes(rogues, rangers, mages, ....) and spells and skills(lore) and feats(favored enemy, knowledge domain, ...) and deities more valuable and gives them more game play opportunities besides just brute force combat.

It also ties grinding to the story and places a limit on it.  You are not going to advance the story much by grinding 1000 orcs even if the OM will give you an endless supply of them.  Killing a lot less than 1000 will teach you all you need to know about the typical orc.  Sure, you could grind a thousand of them.  It's your game.  But, the story could be ready to advance when you have done much less grinding.

Also, if you can set up an accurate trainer for a mission, you can then have a good idea what level the party should be, what loadout to take, etc.  And, it's all story based exploration.

Let's say a powerfull spell caster wants to collect powerful creatures for some reason but would rather stay in his lair conducting research.  So, he lends you a magical trap of his own devising and sends you off to capture creatures with it.  The creatures can be too powerful for the party to kill.  Perhaps you do quests for one NPC to build up your reputation, then that NPC vouches for your party so that the the second NPC can trust you with the trap.  Or, instead of a trap, a focus/targeting item for a hold spell cast by circle magic.  You could get gold for your efforts or you could get the favor of using the NPC's knowledge or bit of creature hair/skin to improve your trances.

These NPCs can be the heirarchy that forms an organization.  The organization could beheld together by belief and loyalty.  Or, all these association could be purely mercenary.  The party could try to conform to or conquer or destroy the web of NPCs.  The NPCs might be rivals that the party tries to unite or exploit.  the fate of the world might hang in the balance, or not.

Luckily, we have already well stocked modules such as White Plume Mountain that could be amended to include this type of game play.  Hmm, maybe the OC or SOZ or MotB could be amended too since a lot of this involves dialog, NPCs, and items which can be overridden easily enough?

[kamal_]

You're already getting a 10 hour module about information gathering that can be solved without killing anything, and is aware of things like when you stupidly wander the city with the door to your house open...

So I expect you to volunteer to beta test when it's ready. :-)

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

The rat-giblet stew quests are so easy to make (and so, inevitable) because they're simply about playing around with the PC's inventory. Go collect some items, get another item in return. Of course this doesn't make a whole lot of sense in regards to time, but then again most cRPG's don't have very good clocks, nor any good way to play around with time (though I wish I spent more of my youth playing Majora's Mask instead of studying). So even if the plot-text talks about time and urgency, it just doesn't translate easily into game-play, at least not as easily as rat-giblets.

Information is another interesting thing to consider. Oftentimes the plot, in the form of journal entries and scraps of paper littering the inventory, is laid-out as the accumulation of different bits of information and plot points, often in a more-or-less linear fashion. But can we think about information as something other than a sequence of facts? Maybe like a jigsaw puzzle, where you collect the pieces, try to arrange them, and then try to guess what it all means even though you're missing some pieces. With the shaman-trainer idea, it's a bit like that, with the content of the sub-quest changing depending on what information you have.

But what about re-arranging the pieces? It'd be neat to imagine some sort of custom GUI with different plot elements laid out for the player's manipulation. Are the Chartreuse Wizards evil exploiters or benevolent protectors? Are the goblin raids about loot and pillage, or are they being paid off by real-estate developers? Rearranging the pieces, making connections, or simply changing your opinion of certain characters changes the way your PC interacts with the world, what possibilities are opened up or closed off. That would make the plot less linear, and maybe more like assembling and then solving a rubik's cube. It might be a better way to enable the player to create their own story as they go along, but it would necessarily detract from the ability of the builder to tell a particular story, plot turn by plot turn.

At the very least, I think Nicethugbert's idea would be a lot easier to implement if we had something like a "mental inventory", a collection of icons representing acquired facts that could be easily searched and re-arranged. You could rig one up as a special placeable's inventory that the PC could access via conversation, or maybe a store, or even just regular items that automatically get deposited in a special container.

[nicethugbert]

kamal_ wrote...

You're already getting a 10 hour module about information gathering that can be solved without killing anything, and is aware of things like when you stupidly wander the city with the door to your house open...

So I expect you to volunteer to beta test when it's ready. :-)

I tested it before and I shall test it again!  I'm even willing to test it in coop with VOIP.  That would be the best way to test it as the bugs would be self reporting with you, the mods dev, witnessing the gameplay.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 28 janvier 2013 - 01:28 .

[PJ156]

For me rats giblets is lazy modding but then I am a story modder and the story is everything. fetch and carry by all means but all must occur within context. Then the problem of simplistic questing hopefully goes away.

I see some mods now out there that give zero xp for creatures and that, to me, is wrong. Combat is a part of progression, it is only a balance issue if you rely on grinding to fill out your module. I think the majority of exp comes from plot progression. Monsters, or more precisely encounters play a part in that progression but in a well balanced story led module they are a part of the story themselves. There is no grinding because each encounter is relevant to the plot.

I myself would not have such a guiding npc as I would see it as weak story modding. If I wanted you to fight a thousand orcs I would have you fight ten; a scouting party perhaps or leader group. Then the rest of the grinding would be done by npc's. The interest here is not in the 1000 orcs but why they are there. A few fights/encounters with them could feed that information back. The rest of the module would be about stopping them without grinding through the whole army.

For me a bigger issue is time. Also raised in NTB's proposal. I put timers in but took them out and let the player do quests at thier own pace. Yes the npc's say say that there is time pressure in the text but what if the npc fails? Does the module end? If not what does happen? Again in story progression timers do not work, they give you an ultimatum and as a modder force you to create new paths for what happens if the pc does not do the task within the time. they are better suited to puzzle mods not story mods. In a good story mod the PC should be immersed enough to want to do things quickly if presented with a good reason. 

I can see that there is a difference between story led and sandbox mods. In a sandbox grinding is part of the show and I can see where you ideas have good merit. For me though, in story led mods, if you need this sort of structure then you are doing something wrong.

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 27 janvier 2013 - 11:29 .

[nicethugbert]

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...

The rat-giblet stew quests are so easy to make (and so, inevitable) because they're simply about playing around with the PC's inventory. Go collect some items, get another item in return. Of course this doesn't make a whole lot of sense in regards to time, but then again most cRPG's don't have very good clocks, nor any good way to play around with time (though I wish I spent more of my youth playing Majora's Mask instead of studying). So even if the plot-text talks about time and urgency, it just doesn't translate easily into game-play, at least not as easily as rat-giblets.

The thing that bugs me most about timed quests is the time it takes to reload when you fail and having to do the first part of the quest over and over and over ...  If reload times could be shortened considerably and there were many auto save points so you don't have to go too far back to start over, then I don't mind trying to figure out how to succeed in game as opposed to going to a wikia to get all the right answers or turning the difficulty down to sleeper levels.

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...

Information is another interesting thing to consider. Oftentimes the plot, in the form of journal entries and scraps of paper littering the inventory, is laid-out as the accumulation of different bits of information and plot points, often in a more-or-less linear fashion. But can we think about information as something other than a sequence of facts? Maybe like a jigsaw puzzle, where you collect the pieces, try to arrange them, and then try to guess what it all means even though you're missing some pieces. With the shaman-trainer idea, it's a bit like that, with the content of the sub-quest changing depending on what information you have.

That is an interesting idea that I did not consider.  I was thinking of the party being more informed before they act upon a typically static situation.  And, that the process of getting informed would be the central activity of the story and the primary driver.  There could of course be combat.  But, gathering information would be what you would do before the boss battle, and after.  You may even have to fight for the scraps of information.  The scraps of information could be what empower others do things such as get the rat giblets for the stew then make the stew rather than have the party do the menial, or far too advanced, tasks of collecting the giblets and making the stew.  Getting the recipe for the stew and having someone else craft it fits into a story frame work much better than the act of grinding for rat giblets then click-festing until there is enough stew for the party to consume for the boss battle.

Since it would be a bit of a waste to let the classes lose their crafting abilities, the rat giblet stew would have to be a significant plot device not something that gives +stat unless it's something that the party would not be able to craft at that level.

The OC sort of did a bit of this with Aldous telling you he needs a certain book to make some scroll.  I forget the exact details.  But, I guess that is the point, I forget, because there wasn't much story.  It was really just another fed ex.  It was under developed.  Actually, the OC does more than that because you start out looking for someone to decipher an artifact.  And, you find ore deposits which you then tell miners about who then supply your contractor with stone for your castle.

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...

But what about re-arranging the pieces? It'd be neat to imagine some sort of custom GUI with different plot elements laid out for the player's manipulation. Are the Chartreuse Wizards evil exploiters or benevolent protectors? Are the goblin raids about loot and pillage, or are they being paid off by real-estate developers? Rearranging the pieces, making connections, or simply changing your opinion of certain characters changes the way your PC interacts with the world, what possibilities are opened up or closed off. That would make the plot less linear, and maybe more like assembling and then solving a rubik's cube. It might be a better way to enable the player to create their own story as they go along, but it would necessarily detract from the ability of the builder to tell a particular story, plot turn by plot turn.

At the very least, I think Nicethugbert's idea would be a lot easier to
implement if we had something like a "mental inventory", a collection of
icons representing acquired facts that could be easily searched and
re-arranged. You could rig one up as a special placeable's inventory
that the PC could access via conversation, or maybe a store, or even
just regular items that automatically get deposited in a special
container.

Yes, the builder would be more of a world builder than a story teller per se.  But, it could still be a story module.  The events could be assembled in the journal as a story.  Maybe it could be exported in html making a sort of ebook.  Maybe the cut scenes could be exported too and formed into a movie.  then we can all read or watch each other run throughs and compare.

The idea of re-arranging as you describe it could be a foundation for a module about manipulation on a grand scale, vast schemes, where the player is the manipulator, perhaps a magical one, sort of a witch doctor, sort of voodoo, perhaps a warlock with mental voodoo.  Or, maybe he tries to defeat such a person by learning the witch doctor's magic and giving him a dose of it.

[nicethugbert]

PJ156 wrote...
I see some mods now out there that give zero xp for creatures and that, to me, is wrong. Combat is a part of progression, it is only a balance issue if you rely on grinding to fill out your module. I think the majority of exp comes from plot progression. Monsters, or more precisely encounters play a part in that progression but in a well balanced story led module they are a part of the story themselves. There is no grinding because each encounter is relevant to the plot.

But, if each encounter is relevant to the plot then why not give the XP only when the plot is advanced?

PJ156 wrote...
For me a bigger issue is time. Also raised in NTB's proposal. I put timers in but took them out and let the player do quests at thier own pace. Yes the npc's say say that there is time pressure in the text but what if the npc fails? Does the module end? If not what does happen? Again in story progression timers do not work, they give you an ultimatum and as a modder force you to create new paths for what happens if the pc does not do the task within the time. they are better suited to puzzle mods not story mods. In a good story mod the PC should be immersed enough to want to do things quickly if presented with a good reason. 

I think the timed quests can work if you have ultra fast reload times and lots of auto saves so you don't have to repeat too much content.  But, NWN2 has long reload times unless you have it installed on an SSD.

PJ156 wrote...
I can see that there is a difference between story led and sandbox mods. In a sandbox grinding is part of the show and I can see where you ideas have good merit. For me though, in story led mods, if you need this sort of structure then you are doing something wrong.

PJ

I don't understand, I proposed information gathering as the cure to grinding or fed-exing.  How can it not be a good driver for story led modules?

[PJ156]

nicethugbert wrote...

But, if each encounter is relevant to the plot then why not give the XP only when the plot is advanced?

Because the combat is part of the experience to a degree. Yes, you could add up all the exp you wanted to give to a plot point and award it at the end but it seems to me to be less fullfilling for the player. From PnP to now I have always had experience for killing an orc so it's nice to get some now. In the end it does not matter but, for me, all exp associated with information means that level up will only occur at the end of quests. Saying to the PC that fighting his first axe beak and winning is less relevant an experience than finding out that the Gamgee family are growing pot to sell to the townsfolk is not right. Both are valid and you may well level up mid quest due to combat situations (or gathering of information relevant to the plot).

nicethugbert wrote...

I think the timed quests can work if you have ultra fast reload times and lots of auto saves so you don't have to repeat too much content.  But, NWN2 has long reload times unless you have it installed on an SSD.

PJ

I agree and to some degree it reflects death scripting. Failing to do something within a certain time is just another death/reload situation though the player might well be annoyed if it was calling on a skill they did not have, say for puzzle solving or mouse clicking. We all take somethign different from NWN2 but I aim for the one who like a good story. All other mod types have thier place but I find timers not relevant to story telling but time, and describing time, very much so. 

nicethugbert wrote...

I don't understand, I proposed information gathering as the cure to grinding or fed-exing.  How can it not be a good driver for story led modules?

Perhaps I am missing the point? I will have another read of your post. Also perhpas I am only arguing from my own similar take on this. All of my mods are about collecting information then acting on it. This goes on it a continuous loop, of move and counter move. Sometime you ahve to fight to get what you want. Sometime you don't caravan club got comments from some that there is not enough action in the first half which i had to correct. I tend to have a narative npc who leads the story. Do something hten go back to your sponsor and do the next thing. Perhaps I am already doing what you proposed within the the context of a story.

PJ

[Rolo Kipp]

<following the sound...>

If you don't mind another viewpoint, if one rather at odds...

Why fix the play-style in stone? Why set so much reward for this style and so much for that?

A possible resolution, then, might be to *sense* the players play-style and adjust the rewards (XP, loot, bonus abilities) on how the actually attack, er, play your mod.

An easier example: if the player is classed as a fighter, give more XP for killing. If a rogue, more for locks/traps. Not to the point of overriding your story, but a definite reward for playing the role.

A harder example: track *how* the player behaves, his choices in conversation, his frequency of solving things with his head or his sword, and adjust rewards accordingly.

PJ's stories suit me (Rolo) down to my toes, but I'd love to have the mod more rewarding for Skeaver Demonsbane (pure fighter) or Pen (Assassin).

It just means paying a bit more attention to story branches and who the player actually *is*.

<...of a friend in an interesting conversation>

[kamal_]

PJ156 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

But, if each encounter is relevant to the plot then why not give the XP only when the plot is advanced?

Because the combat is part of the experience to a degree. Yes, you could add up all the exp you wanted to give to a plot point and award it at the end but it seems to me to be less fullfilling for the player. From PnP to now I have always had experience for killing an orc so it's nice to get some now. In the end it does not matter but, for me, all exp associated with information means that level up will only occur at the end of quests. Saying to the PC that fighting his first axe beak and winning is less relevant an experience than finding out that the Gamgee family are growing pot to sell to the townsfolk is not right. Both are valid and you may well level up mid quest due to combat situations (or gathering of information relevant to the plot).

When I played PnP xp was granted by killing things (and only that, because we were about 10 and had no idea it could be done any other way). However, xp wasn't granted until the end of the session/dungeon level/module, at that point we totalled up what we'd killed and received the xp. So in that way it was also only awarded for progress, you couldn't level up mid dungeon-level.

At some point people realized that only giving xp for killing didn't work for characters that weren't focused on killing things. The wizard who focuses on Charm Person or the thief who pickpockets the plot item the fighter kills the orc to get. The wizard and the thief were stuck at level 1, because they weren't killing anything.

There is another way to think about xp granting. It's not killing the orcs per se that grants experience, it's removing the orcish threat to the village.

Lets say for example the module builder has decided that they want to give approximately 1000 xp for removing an orc threat as part of the progression of the story, so characters advance as the builder expects. There's many ways the module builder could do that:

Infinitely spawning orcs, each individual orc gives 50 xp, after the player kills 1000xp worth the rest flee the area since it's protected by an orc "slayer".

Place enough orcs and an orc chief/shaman to give the players 1000 xp for killing them all. The orc threat is ended as the tribe is wiped out.

Player reaches the orc chief somehow without killing anyone and convinces the orc chief somehow to move the tribe elsewhere. Granted 1000 xp for removing the threat.

Player kills 400 xp worth of orcs, and reaches the chief. Then the player convinces the chief to leave, something made easier because a lot of orcs are already dead. So convincing the chief is granted (1000xp for quest - 400xp for orcs already dead =) 600xp, resulting in 1000 xp for the player's actions in removing the threat. If the player had killed 900xp of orcs already, convincing the chief to leave is going to be extremely easy, so only worth 100xp to give that 1000 total the module builder wants.

In each case, the orc threat is ended. That would be a great way to handle things, as it accounts for the combat type players, the non-combat types, and those who prefer a mix, and ensures they stay in level synch. The combat types would still have a level progress advantage, as they do get the xp as they kill things, so they could level up mid orc horde.

It would also be a pain to program and no one should be faulted for not programming in every possible way a player can think of to solve the orc problem. It's a computer game, not PnP :-)

Why I've gone for granting xp for reaching points in a dungeon/quest, and xp for quest completion: xp for reaching spots in a dungeon reflects either killing things to get there, or bypassing them via stealth/invisibility/bluff. It allows the non-combat player the ability to level mid-dungeon/quest that only the combat character had previously. It takes away the fine grained "xp for kills" advancement of the combat character, but with sufficient xp grants for progression it should give most of the level progress advantage combat characters previously had to the non-combat character, while losing only a bit of the combat pc's level progress advantage (they'd still have a progress advantage under xp for kill, but frequent xp grants for dungeon progress minimize it).

So in the orc example, I'd give the player gets no xp for killing orcs per se, but give 250 xp for reaching the orc watchpost (either kill them, or sneak), another 250 xp for entering their camp (via front gate or sneaking through a hole in the camp wall), and 500 for ending the threat (via killing the chief or convincing him to leave).

Granting all xp for non-combat quests at the end of the quest is traditional, but not right :-) Bluffing the front gate guards should be worth some xp, right?

[kamal_]

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

That's a very interesting idea and I like the sound of it but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one making it. You'd have to take into account multi classes, wizards that want to kill not protect and wild "in your face" thieves to name but a few possibilities that would scramble the system.

Imagine this if x didn't like y and killed him but liked z and did his quest or vice versa or liked them both or killed them both that's 4 possibilities throw in a neutral you've got 9 for 2 quests. Add two more quests and you're looking at 25 how do you keep track of that to work out xp for peoples behaviour or give them options ? You could put in a few global ints and add to them for each type of behaviour and use > or < to offer options but it's a lot of work and that's not why I make modules I do it for fun.

Giving xp for progress along the map/quest solves the class activity problem for progressing towards the boss end of the quest. You wizard and thief examples are simply combat characters in my example, they want to kill things to progress. A swashbuckler is a fighter type, but they have a class description "Favoring agility and wit over brute force, the swashbuckler excels both in combat situations and social interactions" so they might very well try advancing via social skills and be true to the class description.

I suppose a player could say "I snuck by the orcs, and then I went back and talked my past them, and then I turned on them and killed them. I want triple xp!". Well, yeah, I want a billion dollars too.

If people wanted to turn down sidequests, up to them I guess. I normally let people decline once, the quest is given in a state that says the player declined for now, journal says the "offer is still open". If they turn it down a second time, then the quest closes. They didn't do anything worth giving xp for, so they shouldn't get xp out of it.

As you said programming the possibilities gets complicated quickly. Nothing wrong with linearness, as long as the story is good

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

The thing is, monsters and loot are easy to build with because the game does all the work, you just script the encounter to respawn and the player can repeatedly kill the buggers and collect the loot drops.

Plots and stories, even conversational skill checks, though, just don't respawn in the same way. If you want to give a PC credit for bluffing a guard, you have to write out the bluff conversation yourself, and set up the plot and area just right so it all makes sense. I've been trying, mad-lib style, with my chat-bot conversations to make those kind of non-combat situations more like combat, where skills are repeated used, xp repeatedly doled out, and whole scenarios infinitely repeatable.

All that repetition gets boring, though. Combat stays exciting because it's so easy to mix up the creatures, so it follows that a system for mixing up repetitive side-quests should make them more interesting as well. Ultimately, I'd like to set up a system whereby stories and social relationships are played out using d20, round by round, just the way combat is played out. That way, you could paint down a social encounter just as easily as you could paint down a combat encounter, and your PCs could crawl bars instead of dungeons. The main plot will always be more interesting, just as scripted boss fights are more interesting than mook encounters, but it would give non-combat characters a better way to goof off.

That's why I think the information-as-inventory idea is so interesting, because it provides a way to make non-combat side quests infinitely reproducible. Instead of killing things, you're acquiring information. Instead of attack rolls, you're using conversation skill checks. The trick is just to make it more varied and interesting than rat-giblet stew.

[Dann-J]

I like games that provide the option of either combat, stealth or conversation. That way the player gets to decide *how* they go about achieving their goals, even if those goals are set in stone by the story line. It puts the RP into RPG, in my opinion. The overland map in SoZ pretty much took this approach.

I'm trying to have my next halfling-oriented module turn out like that. If you play as a half-orc barbarian, then you'll want to hack your way through problems. A halfling rogue would be better off playing to their strengths and take a stealthy approach. A swashbuckler might prefer talking their way out of situations.

That's not to say that the stealth or conversation options don't end up killing a lot of people. Sneaking poison into the food of an entire garrison, or bluffing a group of rival adventurers into entering the 'completely safe cave of happiness' (ie. dragon lair), can result in some fairly impressive carnage. In the right module, with the right character, an 'Amulet of Diplomacy' can be a boon.

In my next module I've deliberately avoided the Big Bad Boss cliche. There are no clear-cut good/evil right/wrong sides. There will be various ways to resolve the story, and whether or not different groups become enemies or allies depends on how you treat them.

Of course, there are always those creatures that can't or won't listen to reason, and attack on sight, necessitating combat (or running away). Choice is a fine thing, but sometimes life forces circumstances onto you whether you want it too or not.

Modifié par DannJ, 28 janvier 2013 - 10:35 .

[nicethugbert]

PJ156 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

But, if each encounter is relevant to the plot then why not give the XP only when the plot is advanced?

Because the combat is part of the experience to a degree. Yes, you could add up all the exp you wanted to give to a plot point and award it at the end but it seems to me to be less fullfilling for the player. From PnP to now I have always had experience for killing an orc so it's nice to get some now. In the end it does not matter but, for me, all exp associated with information means that level up will only occur at the end of quests. Saying to the PC that fighting his first axe beak and winning is less relevant an experience than finding out that the Gamgee family are growing pot to sell to the townsfolk is not right. Both are valid and you may well level up mid quest due to combat situations (or gathering of information relevant to the plot).

Sure, but why is the axebeak there?  What does the axebeak have to do with the plot?  If you di not get XP for killing the orc, would you kill it?  What do character levels have to do with the plot?  You could have a chosen one saves the universe adventure for a level 1 party.  Everything would have to be scaled down, of course, no level 100 princes of hell, level 5 maybe.  There are no levels in story telling.  Levels are an arbitrary invention.

Killing the axebeak would matter to a bounty hunter, a Witcher, etc.  But, it might not matter to the rogue in a criminal organization that wants to put the Gamgees out of business.  Maybe the Gamgees are using the axebeak to guard their stash.  Maybe the rogue drugs and sets the thing loose in their house and it kills some of them and the commotion draws attention to them and in this way they get discovered when the local paladin, or militia, or adventures go to save innocents from the axebeak run amock.  Maybe the rogue was too low level or ill equipped to assasinate the axebeak in silence so stealthy sabotage was the only way for him to succeed.

Take a look at Hitman 3 for instance, awards are based on how stealthily you complete the assignments.

PJ156 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

I think the timed quests can work if you have ultra fast reload times and lots of auto saves so you don't have to repeat too much content.  But, NWN2 has long reload times unless you have it installed on an SSD.

I agree and to some degree it reflects death scripting. Failing to do something within a certain time is just another death/reload situation though the player might well be annoyed if it was calling on a skill they did not have, say for puzzle solving or mouse clicking. We all take somethign different from NWN2 but I aim for the one who like a good story. All other mod types have thier place but I find timers not relevant to story telling but time, and describing time, very much so. 

Yes, and the issue I had in mind when I spoke of time is the issue where a quest says you must hurry yet you can go off and do anything: dice playing, arm wrestling, sparring, monster hunting, etc.  And, these other activities have absolutly nothing to do with the quest which is claming urgency, not even the remotest possibility of a connection.  I can understand not having a timer.  But, at the very least, the player shouldn't be able to do unnecessary or unrelated quests while you have the urgent quest pending otherwise there is no urgency at all despite the claim.  In such cases, the module suffers a lack of immersion.

PJ156 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

I don't understand, I proposed information gathering as the cure to grinding or fed-exing.  How can it not be a good driver for story led modules?

Perhaps I am missing the point? I will have another read of your post. Also perhpas I am only arguing from my own similar take on this. All of my mods are about collecting information then acting on it. This goes on it a continuous loop, of move and counter move. Sometime you ahve to fight to get what you want. Sometime you don't caravan club got comments from some that there is not enough action in the first half which i had to correct. I tend to have a narative npc who leads the story. Do something hten go back to your sponsor and do the next thing. Perhaps I am already doing what you proposed within the the context of a story.

PJ

You mentioned something that I want to take the opprotunity to address.  Having to go back to the sponsor is often a pain and sometimes pointless, especially when every quest giver has their very own pet area transition for no good reason.  It would be refreshing to see quests where the result is immediate such that you don't have to go back to the sponsor, at least to advance the plot.  I can see having to go back to get paid.

It would be much less of a drag on the game to able to take care of a number of things while out on assignments before heading back to sponsors.  Maybe some quest givers shouldn't require reporting back as a condition to finalize the quest.  The player could still report back to them because they might have something more to offer like surprise information related to another quest, or to set up future quests/encounters/situations/occurances/plot/reputation points/etc. if not a reward, or just for art's sake.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:27 .

[nicethugbert]

kamal_ wrote...
I suppose a player could say "I snuck by the orcs, and then I went back and talked my past them, and then I turned on them and killed them. I want triple xp!". Well, yeah, I want a billion dollars too.

Yes, I want a billion dollars too.    But, I'll settle for some in game acknowledgement that I talked my way past the orcs just so I could murder them thereby proving that I'm an evil rotten bastard.

[nicethugbert]

Hmm, would it be possible to mod the OC such that you could play it with the side-goal of pissing off your "sponsors" as much as you could possibly get away with? That would be so chaotic in alignment. Imagine laughing your ass off with your party about how pissed off you made King Whatshisface and how you got away with such lame excuses. I'd like to have fun at my quest givers expense. It would be so much fun to clown all the quest givers, yet save the world.

[nicethugbert]

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...

The thing is, monsters and loot are easy to build with because the game does all the work, you just script the encounter to respawn and the player can repeatedly kill the buggers and collect the loot drops.

So true.  And, the sad thing is that this is how many prominant game companies make their games, shallow.  I'm not above hours of plain old action.  But, it can easily detract from a story based module if not carefully.

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...
Plots and stories, even conversational skill checks, though, just don't respawn in the same way. If you want to give a PC credit for bluffing a guard, you have to write out the bluff conversation yourself, and set up the plot and area just right so it all makes sense. I've been trying, mad-lib style, with my chat-bot conversations to make those kind of non-combat situations more like combat, where skills are repeated used, xp repeatedly doled out, and whole scenarios infinitely repeatable.

All that repetition gets boring, though. Combat stays exciting because it's so easy to mix up the creatures, so it follows that a system for mixing up repetitive side-quests should make them more interesting as well. Ultimately, I'd like to set up a system whereby stories and social relationships are played out using d20, round by round, just the way combat is played out. That way, you could paint down a social encounter just as easily as you could paint down a combat encounter, and your PCs could crawl bars instead of dungeons. The main plot will always be more interesting, just as scripted boss fights are more interesting than mook encounters, but it would give non-combat characters a better way to goof off.

That's why I think the information-as-inventory idea is so interesting, because it provides a way to make non-combat side quests infinitely reproducible. Instead of killing things, you're acquiring information. Instead of attack rolls, you're using conversation skill checks. The trick is just to make it more varied and interesting than rat-giblet stew.

Which chat bot?  OM has an element of boredom too.  That's why I always take a rogue on OM maps.  The area transitions kill it for me.  But, it still makes the world a lot more lively and I'd rather have it than not.

Maybe an expert system would be useful here?

If information is an inventory then what do you put inside it?

Modifié par nicethugbert, 29 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[darkling lithely]

This is such an interesting thread. It's the stuff everyone wishes while they're playing their character. And while I post infrequently, I’ve read so many posts all of you have made so many times that I ask with some hesitation:

Who has played both parts of “A Dance with Rogues?” Especially the most recent versions.

Valine handles characters and quests purely brilliantly.

[Tchos]

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...
 Ultimately, I'd like to set up a system whereby stories and social relationships are played out using d20, round by round, just the way combat is played out. That way, you could paint down a social encounter just as easily as you could paint down a combat encounter, and your PCs could crawl bars instead of dungeons.

I'm very interested in this idea.  I agree that the game needs some easily-added social encounters.

nicethugbert wrote...
Which chat bot?

I think he meant chat box, there, but I could be wrong.

darkling lithely wrote...
Who has played both parts of “A Dance with Rogues?” Especially the most recent versions.

I have not, but if it incorporates social encounters like this, then I'll move it up in my priority of modules to play.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

By "chat-bot" I meant some of the specialized conversations in 'The Danaan Unvanquished'. They're basically mini-games played out in a conversation using repeated skill-checks and script-generated responses. The most common was a barter-type script, where you could use appraise, diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate to haggle a merchant's prices up and down for a particular item. The second-most common was an interrogation, where you used the same skills to coax different bits of information out of an NPC.

They weren't really all that liked by the players, maybe mostly due to a clunky implementation, but maybe also because players just don't really enjoy repeated skill checks. The irony is that combat is mostly just repeated skill-checks, too, just with better graphics.