27 réponses à ce sujet

[Luminus]

This is a random thought that crossed my mind after reading the descriptions of the background feats on NwN2Wiki.

I wish more module/campaign makers (which they might do, not sure) used every bit of the character's build choices and commenting on them in dialogue.

For example, someone with the Flirt background feat, would get comments about it from party members or NPCs and maybe unlock special dialogue.
Or if you had the Appraiser background trait, you would get an additional discount in shops on top of your high Appraise skill.
Likewise with the race, class and stats.

If you made female Drow with high CHA, they would comment on your dark beauty but also be weary and fearful of you.
A Half-Orc with high STR would also get comments of intimidation from others and attract some negative attention perhaps.

I don't think I've seen this in many modules and I remember it mostly from NwN1 modules.

It seems that in most modules it basically goes "Oh you're a Drow/Duergar/Tiefling/Gray Orc, what beer do you want?"

Some would argue that this is too much trouble but I think that it adds a lot to the replaybility and immersion of the module.

[kamal_]

This basic discussion idea is something I remember popping up a while ago. For me it's a question of my time as a builder. I don't have infinite time to make modules, so time I spend accounting for these things in conversation is time I could spend elsewhere, or I could delay my release to spend the time on adding these things. Is that a tradeoff I am willing to make?

 

Some of what you are asking for is at least some replacing of skill dc checking with automatic success based on having a given feat. The flirt gets special options automatically, whereas the builder could put in a "try to flirt" diplomacy check. The flirt background already gives a bonus to that check, since they get an automatic bonus to diplomacy, so the flirt background is already accounted for in a "try to flirt" diplomacy check. That sort of substitution of auto-success for a feat versus skill check would be a builder preference thing. Similarly with the Appraiser background: since that gives a bonus to appraise it's already baked into your discount at shops in of the script that handles shops since the discount is based on appraise skill.

 

Some of what you ask is a question of how much reactivity you want out of an npc (commenting on the dark beauty of a high CHA drow, the intimidating high strength half orc etc.). That sort of thing is certainly possible, as I said it's a matter of a tradeoff of builder time. Do I want to spend the time writing special lines for the high CHA drow when those lines are something that most players will not see, or do I spend more time decorating the boss room, which everyone will see?

 

If I have a special comment for the high CHA drow, will that make any appreciable ingame difference? If there's no reason for it to have an appreciable difference then maybe it's not worth my time as a builder. The barkeep giving you a gold piece off the price of an ale for your high cha drow-ness is certainly a nice rpg touch, but it makes little game difference. Since builders don't have infinite building time, we have to decide if we want to have that sort of thing.

 

Now a appreciable difference is something else. For instance in SoZ if you have the same god as some groups (the overland map Banites I think), you can send them away instead of having to fight them. That is both a nice rpg touch, and an appreciable game difference. I'm more likely to add something like that than a one gp discount on an ale at the bar.

[Luminus]

If I have a special comment for the high CHA drow, will that make any appreciable ingame difference? If there's no reason for it to have an appreciable difference then maybe it's not worth my time as a builder. The barkeep giving you a gold piece off the price of an ale for your high cha drow-ness is certainly a nice rpg touch, but it makes little game difference. Since builders don't have infinite building time, we have to decide if we want to have that sort of thing.

 

Now a appreciable difference is something else. For instance in SoZ if you have the same god as some groups (the overland map Banites I think), you can send them away instead of having to fight them. That is both a nice rpg touch, and an appreciable game difference. I'm more likely to add something like that than a one gp discount on an ale at the bar.

It doesn't need to be for every NPC everywhere, or for every build option of course.
But personally, as a player, I think it does make a difference. It's that attention to detail that is appreciated, the increased immersion and replay-value.

I remember it in NwN1's HotU when the tavern owner's daughter barges into your room and if you try to flirt with her and have low CHA, she wrinkles her nose.
Or in A Dance With Rogues NwN1's modules you got different comments about your char's body and breasts (silly example but still) depending on your CON score.

By the Flirt's history feat description on NwN2Wiki, it says that you do get some different dialogue options.
In NwN1, you also had the dumb dialogue if you made a char with low INT.
Also in NwN2, if you had characters that were healers (Paladins, Clerics etc) you could heal them in dialogue without a skill check or healing them with items.
Also in the Icewind Dale games were if you were a Paladin or Monk, you would refuse rewards and there would be extra dialogue and/or rewards for Bards, Druids etc.

Another example would be when you walk to a door of an establishment with a bouncer outside.
Checks could be made that you could "flirt" with the bouncer if you were a female with high CHA to let you in. And/or, you would have to use a social skill.
Or if you were a Half-Orc with high STR, he would hesitate to refuse you entrance.

Perhaps if you played a Bard, you could pay for the drinks/room/food by playing music/dancing and making a Perform check to entertain the guests.

If you played a female Drow (mentioned female Drow a bit too many times but oh well) and there was an Underdark section/campaign, you would get far more favorable treatments and responses.
If you played a Duergar, you would have access to Duergar-only items perhaps and get extra discount.

A Pale Master might get bad responses from some commoners or Druids/Rangers but sentient undead might consider him closer to them and not attack.
A Red Wizard might be the same but have access to a Thayan Enclave and gain respect from other Red Wizards.
A Blackguard would get bad responses because of his evil reputation but evil NPCs would respect him greatly and maybe fear him.

For me, these are real reasons to replay a module/campaign instead of replaying with just a different build or different companions perhaps.
I consider those very very nice touches and pleasant surprises and increases immersion.

[Tchos]

I chose the Ladies' Man background feat on my second playthrough for the NWN2 OC because of the different dialogue options it gave me.

[kamal_]

It doesn't need to be for every NPC everywhere, or for every build option of course.
But personally, as a player, I think it does make a difference. It's that attention to detail that is appreciated, the increased immersion and replay-value.

 

Yes, but all those things take time to add, and builders do not have infinite time. It's not a matter of can we do things as a builder, but a matter of do we want to spend the time (and do we think there should be an option for something in a spot). That is why you see stuff like that more often in the official adventures, because they have a team of people making it so they have more dev-hours available and can spend the time to do so.

 

That's not to say we can't add those things, for instance in Crimmor I added a system that let's you use the better of Intimidation or Appraise with buying and selling from some merchants. So in Crimmor you can intimidate some merchants into giving you a better price, and that only works for merchants that you are capable of bullying (you can't bully your own guild merchants for instance). And there are a bunch of subtle and not so subtle changes with the various pseudo prestige classes (Urban Savant allows you to insta-solve some quests with your deep knowledge of the city's history, get Dark Host right at the beginning of the game for instance and there's thirty or so different interactions all throughout the game even though I don't expect people to normally get that class option until near the end).

 

So we can build ultra-deep interactivity, but that takes time. Do you want light sources to be able to be turned off/on, and have that make a difference in your hide score? Have a patrolling guards react to lights off that are supposed to be on, turning them on and then looking around for who did it? Charm a merchant for a shop discount? I can do that (Crimmor can do all that, you can even turn the lights on/off from afar via appropriate damage types instead of turning them manually). It takes time to implement though.

 

The background commoners of Crimmor took several months or so to script for instance. I could have spent that time making a number of questlines or added some dungeons. Did you notice that the commoners go home at night and come out of the same house in the morning? That happens automatically because it's scripted. The street sounds in Crimmor change depending on the time of day as well. That took time too. If you noticed, you hopefully thought that was cool. If you didn't notice, then the time I spent doing that was wasted as far as you're concerned.

 

That kind of depth is good and I appreciate it when I see those kinds of things, but as I said we as builders don't have infinite time to add stuff like that, we have to draw the line somewhere in interest of releasing anything at all. Even my time in this thread is time I could be building something. I'm having it because I think it's valuable, but it's still a tradeoff of my toolset time.

[Dann-J]

There are several conversation nodes early on in the OC that take background feats into account, but they thinned out considerably as the game progressed. I suspect that as deadlines loomed, the developers probably didn't have time to add all the nuances you see early on.

 

For campaign or module authors, giving companions background feats might help to reinforce their individual characters without the need to spell it out in so many words via their conversations.

[Dann-J]

If you noticed, you hopefully thought that was cool. If you didn't notice, then the time I spent doing that was wasted as far as you're concerned.

 

 

I would argue that if players *don't* notice the ambient nuances, then you've done your job properly. Ambience should never shout "Here I am! Look what's happening!". Otherwise it stops being ambience.

 

The sweet spot is somewhere between NPCs standing in the same spot 24 hours a day doing nothing, and NPCs frequently breaking out into musical numbers or acrobatic circus routines. Both extremes draw unwanted attention to themselves.

[kamal_]

I would argue that if players *don't* notice the ambient nuances, then you've done your job properly. Ambience should never shout "Here I am! Look what's happening!". Otherwise it stops being ambience.

 

The sweet spot is somewhere between NPCs standing in the same spot 24 hours a day doing nothing, and NPCs frequently breaking out into musical numbers or acrobatic circus routines. Both extremes draw unwanted attention to themselves.

Well, with so many npcs in so many games standing in the same spot 24x7 doing the same thing, more natural ambient behavior in a game stands out.

 

I got a lot of "wow, it seems like a real city" feedback, which meant people tended to notice and appreciate the attempted "naturalness" of the ambience. But if every game's city was like that, people wouldn't notice. Naturalness is hard, and I think the effect isn't noticed by most game players (it's probably more noticed by rpg players, because they care more about detail things like that).

[Snowdog65]

This basic discussion idea is something I remember popping up a while ago. For me it's a question of my time as a builder. I don't have infinite time to make modules, so time I spend accounting for these things in conversation is time I could spend elsewhere, or I could delay my release to spend the time on adding these things. Is that a tradeoff I am willing to make?

 

That makes total sense. There are also so many skills/feats that so many people might have higher priority for, that this kind of detail would not be possible.

 

One thing that does annoy me though is when the modules refer to you by class, it is usually just the first class.  I might be (and often am) a Rogue 1/Ranger 21, and they will still call me a Rogue... Is it difficult to find the dominant class (one with the most levels)?

[kevL]

Is it difficult to find the dominant class (one with the most levels)?

it's nontrivial.

- find the dominant class with comparators, convert the output to a string with a lookup-table, and figure out a klunky way to insert it as a custom token into dialog.

But to find the first class:

"Hi, <class>!"

so, yeah...

[Groove Widdit]

I want to do something like that, but use the highest-level class to open up a dialogue branch.

[kevL]

that's easier

Spoiler

// 'gc_classcheck'
//
// iClass - see Classes.2da (row#'s)


// Gets highest class per Classes.2da
// - adapted from 'x2_inc_treasure'
int GetHighestClass(object oTarget);

//______
// MAIN
int StartingConditional(int iClass)
{
    if (GetHighestClass(GetPCSpeaker()) == iClass)
        return TRUE;

    return FALSE;
}

// Gets highest class per Classes.2da
// - adapted from 'x2_inc_treasure'
int GetHighestClass(object oTarget)
{
    int iClass1 = GetLevelByPosition(1, oTarget);
    int iClass2 = GetLevelByPosition(2, oTarget);
    int iClass3 = GetLevelByPosition(3, oTarget);
    int iClass4 = GetLevelByPosition(4, oTarget);

    if (iClass1 >= iClass2 && iClass1 >= iClass3 && iClass1 >= iClass4)
        return GetClassByPosition(1, oTarget);

    if (iClass2 >= iClass3 && iClass2 >= iClass4)
        return GetClassByPosition(2, oTarget);

    if (iClass3 >= iClass4)
        return GetClassByPosition(3, oTarget);

    return GetClassByPosition(4, oTarget);
}

// untested.

[MayCaesar]

The problem with using all the possible choices of various stats, races and such is that it takes too much time to implement it all. Just imagine this: comment on female Drow with high CHA, comment on female Drow with low CHA, comment on female Sun Elf with high DEX... You spend a lot of time implementing this all, and then the player only plays through the module once or a couple of times and isn't even aware of most of the things you've implemented since they only made a couple of choices out of a huge variety.

 

This is the reason I've always preferred pre-defined character backgrounds. Now, I haven't played too many custom modules yet in NWN2, but in other games I played I always preferred on-rails experience, since it gives much more opportunity for developers to make your character more engaged in the surrounding world. For example, if a mod maker makes a comment to their mod, "This mod is for Sorcerer female Drow with Chaotic alignment", I am perfectly fine with it. Modules that allow all possible choices make the character an outsider, not engaged in the story in any way, since this allowability always is at the expense of deepness.

 

I am playing Aielund Saga in NWN1 right now, and I do not feel any connection with my character at all. There are no specific comments from NPCs on anything other than gender and, perhaps, sometimes alignment. I'd rather play Good Chaotic Human male with a lot of dialogue based on this, than play anything I want that doesn't really interact with other NPCs, other than generic "Where do you want me to go? Oh, OK, I will bring you the head of that dragon".

 

Just look at the Witcher series. You play the same character every time, and the only thing you can customize is the type of haircut in Witcher 2 and the type of facial hair in Witcher 3. People comment about the color of Witcher's hair, about his scars, about his grim looks, about his tendency to ignore politics... This is the approach I prefer, it makes me feel one with the character I am playing.

[Dann-J]

For example, if a mod maker makes a comment to their mod, "This mod is for Sorcerer female Drow with Chaotic alignment", I am perfectly fine with it.

 

I'm of the opposite opinion - if I see a campaign description that says it's for a specific race, class, or alignment then I don't bother playing it. For me, role playing is about making your own story, not being rail-roaded into following someone else's story.

 

If the author of a module or campaign can't be bothered providing enough options for different character types and playing styles, then I consider they haven't done their job properly (especially if it's a D&D-based game). I like a game that can be played multiple times with different character types and playing styles, that provides a different experience every time. That way I get my money's worth.

 

I've only played the original Witcher game, but I've played it through three times to experience the three main alliance paths, and to explore some of the minor plot decisions to see what differences they make. After playing it three times I'm confident that I've experienced most of what the game has to offer, and I doubt I'll ever play it again. A game with more classes, races and alignments that fully caters for all those options has the potential to be replayed dozens of times over many years - and in fact here I am still playing NWN2 after nearly ten years and who knows how many play-throughs.

[MayCaesar]

I'm of the opposite opinion - if I see a campaign description that says it's for a specific race, class, or alignment then I don't bother playing it. For me, role playing is about making your own story, not being rail-roaded into following someone else's story.

 

Well, when I want to make my own story, I simply make it up in my head - daydreaming, as it is called sometimes. When I play someone else's campaign, I want to relive this campaign as the author intended, and the variety of choices naturally doesn't get along with the deepness of each individual choice. 

 

I guess it depends on what you prefer in games. I know many people playing Neverwinter Nights 1/2 modules do so mostly because they like exploration and combat, and they like to play with various builds. I am on the opposite side of spectrum, and for me the story is the primary aspect. I do not really care how many options I have in killing that boss, what I do care is how that boss and the fight against him fits in the story.

 

I came to the RPG world from books. I've always seen RPG games as "virtual books" of sorts. Books don't provide you with any choices, they just tell you the story as the author intended it - and the lack of necessity to take into account millions possible choices the reader would like to make in the story gives the author opportunity to make the characters really deep, something that is impossible in RPGs with multiple meaningful choices due to natural limitations in construction time.

 

---

 

Bottom line, I'd rather play through a module once, playing a deep character, than play various nobodies 100 times.

[Dann-J]

 Books don't provide you with any choices, they just tell you the story as the author intended it..

 

Which is precisely why if I want to enjoy a good story, I read a book (something I much prefer to do than playing computer games).

 

I don't expect an in-depth story from something as lowly as a computer game. I play games to have fun and to be challenged (hopefully in equal measures), and for me 'fun' means having choices. I also tend to play computer games in short bursts (often in between hours of reading), which isn't conducive to keeping track of a complex plot or long conversations.

[MayCaesar]

Well, like I said, it depends on your perspective. I like playing games as I would read a book because a game immerses you in the world much deeper than a book. Books have another advantage, which is the effectiveness of production: you can in a few minutes write something to visualize in 3D which you would need many hours of work of a few very talented artists. But games don't have any visuals, any sounds, any music. Both ways of delivering a story have advantages and disadvantages. 

 

That said, I've never really understood people considering that games are somehow "lowly".  But that is another matter not quite related to the topic.

[Dann-J]

I like playing games as I would read a book because a game immerses you in the world much deeper than a book.

 

I strongly disagree with you there. No computer game I've ever played even comes close to the immersion of my own imagination while reading a book. For me, a few well-chosen words paint a thousand pictures.

 

Which is frustrating when I create my own modules, as there's no way the limits of a game engine can possible do justice to the things I have in mind. I have to make do with a pale on-screen imitation of the original vision - but then, I have no trouble imagining the things implied (but not specifically presented) by descriptive text in a computer game. I can only hope that people playing my modules can do the same.

[Tchos]

That said, I've never really understood people considering that games are somehow "lowly".  But that is another matter not quite related to the topic.

 

Games are not lowly as games, but as fiction they do tend to be approximately on par with the writing in movies, not in books.  I've mentioned before that it's hard enough to find great writing in popular novels, let alone looking for it in media where the writing isn't the focus.

[MayCaesar]

 

I strongly disagree with you there. No computer game I've ever played even comes close to the immersion of my own imagination while reading a book. For me, a few well-chosen words paint a thousand pictures. 

 

Which is frustrating when I create my own modules, as there's no way the limits of a game engine can possible do justice to the things I have in mind. I have to make do with a pale on-screen imitation of the original vision - but then, I have no trouble imagining the things implied (but not specifically presented) by descriptive text in a computer game. I can only hope that people playing my modules can do the same.

 

 

OK, think about it: what would immerse you more, reading a book about some imaginary world, or actually living in this world? Apparently the latter, since all your senses perceive the perfectly clear picture of the world, like nothing your imagination could do: visuals, sounds, physical feelings, smells, tastes. A book cannot fully present you with any of these. A video game, at least, provides you with visuals and sounds, which, if you so desire, you can complete with your imagination. Yes, a video game fails at the variety of what is possible in it - but what it DOES have is unachievable in books. Books can achieve similar immersion and feelings by using other methods, though. Like I said, two ways of presentation, each with something it presents better and something it presents worse.

 

And I totally can relate to the limitations in creating modules. The main plot I have in mind is very deep and rich, but to implement it fully in a game would take, probably, dozens years of work, and even then it won't be exactly what I would like it to be, due to natural video game limitations. I was thinking of writing a book instead, but I don't think I am such a good writer as to be any successful with it (most likely I would spend a decade working on a series of books which no one would even know of then).

 

The perfect scenery for it would probably be cinematography, but, unfortunately, I don't have billions dollars to hire top actors, 3D designers, etc.

 

 

Games are not lowly as games, but as fiction they do tend to be approximately on par with the writing in movies, not in books.  I've mentioned before that it's hard enough to find great writing in popular novels, let alone looking for it in media where the writing isn't the focus.

 

 

Well, I'd say the amount of feelings and thoughts I got from playing through Mask of the Betrayer rivals most books I've read. 

 

Of course there are true gems of Fantasy genre like Kingkiller Chronicles or Mistborn Trilogy, and those, of course, cannot be matched by any games in existence.

[Dann-J]

 

 

OK, think about it: what would immerse you more, reading a book about some imaginary world, or actually living in this world? Apparently the latter, since all your senses perceive the perfectly clear picture of the world, like nothing your imagination could do: visuals, sounds, physical feelings, smells, tastes. A book cannot fully present you with any of these.

 

 

When I read a book, the sights, sounds, smells, textures (etc) it conjures up are all in infinitely high resolution, playing at an infinite framerate.  I read a single word like 'field' and I can instantly see a million blades of grass swaying in a breeze beneath the sky. The feel and sound of the breeze, the smell of the grass, and the ever-changing sky above are all implied even if they're not specifically mentioned in the text. Those are the sorts of unmentioned details the imagination fills in on its own.

 

A well-written book combined with the reader's imagination trumps anything a computer can simulate. From my perspective I can't even understand how you could compare the two at all, let alone suggest the computer-generated version to be more immersive! But then, no individual can ever hope to know what perception is like for anyone else.

[MayCaesar]

When I read a book, the sights, sounds, smells, textures (etc) it conjures up are all in infinitely high resolution, playing at an infinite framerate.  I read a single word like 'field' and I can instantly see a million blades of grass swaying in a breeze beneath the sky. The feel and sound of the breeze, the smell of the grass, and the ever-changing sky above are all implied even if they're not specifically mentioned in the text. Those are the sorts of unmentioned details the imagination fills in on its own.

 

A well-written book combined with the reader's imagination trumps anything a computer can simulate. From my perspective I can't even understand how you could compare the two at all, let alone suggest the computer-generated version to be more immersive! But then, no individual can ever hope to know what perception is like for anyone else.

 

Well, why do people go to beach to swim? Apparently because the feelings they get when actually swimming in the water by far surpass anything they can try to imagine in their minds (otherwise no one would need to go anywhere at all; everyone could just lay on coaches and imagine things way beyond anything one can experience).

 

What I am saying is video games deliver some of those feelings. A real actual sound will have more impact than any sound you can imagine (otherwise there wouldn't be much sense going to musical concerts). A real actual picture will have more impact than any picture you can imagine (walking in Akihabara and looking around is hard to compare to any city description I've seen in books, let me tell you). The games are obviously limited in what they can show, compared to books. But what they DO show has, at least, some aspects books cannot emulate. Our imagination can only get us so far. Imagination combined with actual sounds and visuals is much more potent.

 

I agree with you that books generally are better at delivering stories. However, games have some strong features as well. I play/read both mainly for the story, and I am happy with both.

[Dann-J]

 

What I am saying is video games deliver some of those feelings.

 

No - they provide only visual and audio input. You have to create the feelings yourself, based on what you see, hear and read.

 

A real actual sound will have more impact than any sound you can imagine... A real actual picture will have more impact than any picture you can imagine...

 

You mean any that *you* can imagine. You don't know what *I* can imagine.

 

I have some fond memories of text-based computer adventures in the 1980s that had no pictures or sounds. Perhaps younger generations have been spoiled by high-resolution computer graphics and polyphonic sound synthesis, and have less of an imagination these days. Why waste grey matter when a machine can do all the heavy lifting for you?

[MayCaesar]

 

No - they provide only visual and audio input. You have to create the feelings yourself, based on what you see, hear and read.

 

I don't know about other people, but when I hear an amazing jazz piano solo, I don't have to manually create any feelings in my head: they are already there. When I hear the "Mulsantir" song in Neverwinter Nights 2, I immediately was there, in harsh Rashemen wilds, on the edge of the world. No book can express with words what I felt.

On the other hand, say, in "The Wise Man's Fear" Felurian was described with words so masterfully, I don't think the best model designer in the world could draw anything more detailed and sharp.

 

Both approaches can lead to incredible immersion. It all depends on the execution, not on the method, in my opinion.

 

 

 

I have some fond memories of text-based computer adventures in the 1980s that had no pictures or sounds. Perhaps younger generations have been spoiled by high-resolution computer graphics and polyphonic sound synthesis, and have less of an imagination these days. Why waste grey matter when a machine can do all the heavy lifting for you?

 

Imagination is limited. For example, I play jazz piano a lot. Even when I am not playing on my keyboard, there are always songs in my head I automatically subconsciously compose. Sometimes I create something truly incredible, I can "listen" to it and enjoy it. But it all changes when I put my hands on the keyboard... Once this happens, I am in another world, world of ecstasy of the level few other experiences can give me.

I can imagine romantic scenes in my head all I want, but nothing, even my wildest dreams, compares to hugging someone dear to me in real life.

I can imagine sharp pain by someone hitting me with a longsword. But, as you can guess, if someone hits me just with a small knife in real life, the feeling will be a bit different.

 

As for people spoiled by modern technology - yes, I think it takes place. But I've always seen it as supporting imagination development, not slowing it down. Some of my best "daydreaming" plots I've created over the years were inspired by things I saw in video games. Many musical pieces and sounds I've heard in games help me create similar pieces and sounds in my head when I am imagining things. I play quite complicated pieces of piano, mostly because I've listened to various jazz songs in the Internet, in total, for probably thousands hours. Had I only read books on jazz over the years, I doubt I would even care to buy a piano - I wouldn't be able to play anything anyway.

 

Oh, and my first game was Golden Axe but in 1991, so, even though I started a bit later than you, I don't think I am as spoiled as some.

[rjshae]

I remember it in NwN1's HotU when the tavern owner's daughter barges into your room and if you try to flirt with her and have low CHA, she wrinkles her nose.

 

The way that HotU tends to script that type of response is with broad strokes: high or low Cha; male or female; human or non-human. That simplifies the possible responses quite a bit.