RPG Design: Importing main characters to sequels

[EvoG]

Yea really. :shock:

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Anyone here try this (importing, I mean), and how did it effect there success?

IIRC, characters were scalled down in levels and had much of their loot taken away. However, some sepcial items in the game were reportedly only accessible to players who imported characters, as uber-items in Wiz7 would be converted into somewhat uber-items in Wiz8.

 

[Sarvis]

You really are an idiot, you know that?

Ran out of arguments and decided to go with insults? Your choice, but I'd like to remind you again that out of hundreds (literally) dumbfucks who've visited this place, you were the first one to earn that rank. Just think about that, my not overly bright friend.

YEah, funny how it's ok for you retards to constantly insult me, but I get called on it. HILARIOUS actually!

And you're just being a bigger idiot with every post. Your ENTIRE argument boils down to "I can't imagine something, and don't <i>like</i> the scenarios Sarvis comes up with, so it's impossible to do."

Sorry, but this isn't third grade and you are obviously not the smartest or most creative human who has ever existed. People do things you are unable to think of all the time.

I'm sorry if I got confused by your utter lack of consistancy!

It's ok, I'm not surprised that you are confused, but I'm glad you can admit that and ask for help

It's just hard to keep up when you completely fail to say anything sensible or even use the language properly.

One of those retarded explanation that became Sarvis' trademark. A Civic is a Honda AND a car too! What are you? 5? Anyway, if you insist on learning a new word today, I'll be happy to help.

Childish? ROFL. Sorry if pointing out the meaning of a word to someone who has no clue about it is childish. Oh wait, you just tried to do that. now who's being childish? Listen you fucktard, a subclass of Object IS Object.

It's the entire fucking basis of Object Oriented Programming, not that I'd expect you to be able to deal with a simple concept.

Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, under, below, secretly, from below, up, near, from sub under, close to -- more at UP
1 : under : beneath : below <subsoil> <subaqueous>
2 a : subordinate : secondary : next lower than or inferior to <substation> <subeditor> b : subordinate portion of : subdivision of <subcommittee> <subspecies> c : with repetition (as of a process) so as to form, stress, or deal with subordinate parts or relations <sublet> <subcontract>
3 : less than completely, perfectly, or normally : somewhat <subacute> <subclinical>
4 a : almost : nearly <suberect> b : falling nearly in the category of and often adjoining : bordering on <subarctic>

I'll guess you are going with 4a as your definition when using sub-class? Good, good. Good for you.

Here's what subclass actually means, even in non-programming terms:


sub·class     P   Pronunciation Key  (sbkls)
1. n. A subdivision of a set or class.
2. Biology. A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking between a class and an order


Gee, it almost sounds like if you have a group of people and then subdivide them into a group of females and a group of males you STILL have groups of people!

Or, perhaps, if you take a group of RPGs and subdivide them into Dungeon Crawl or Story Driven you still have RPGs! It's AMAZING what you can learn when you understand simple English! It really is.

Can you navigate through the explanation on your own, or do I need to chew it up for you?

From what you hear? Cool fact. But no, even if you are correct, that does NOT fit my
definition. Are you really that stupid that you can't see that? Come on, try harder.

Yeah yeah, nothing EVER fits your definition because your definition seems to change every time someone puts up an example of it.

Assuming that I was correct about Deus Ex, you CAN play your character in different ways according to his skills. If you don't pick locks, you will suck at it and not pick locks in the future. If you don't kill people often, you will suck at fighting and avoid it. If you fight and pick locks a lot, you will get good at those things and do them.

Sounds like playing your character according to his skills to me. Of course, I'm sure the definition will now change someohow, or you'll just claim that this is somehow not playing a char according to his skills and then never explain what playing a char according to his skills actually is.

It's not the same example, you dumb fuck. A single US marine wiping out a US town all by his fucking self would have been the same example in a real life situation. A single US marine from your example killing an African tribe isn't the same. If you don't get that, you are really fucking stupid and unable to understand, evaluate, and compare basic concepts.

And Gauss rifles are probably advanced enough weaponry that handguns would be as effective as stone tipped spears by comparison.

However, to entertain your stupidity what if we gave the marine a guass rifle and sent him into an average city in America? He'd still wipe it out because of the advanced hardware, so that makes him a demi-god?

It's funny how you never acytually respond to the examples, just claim they are bad examples. ALWAYS. Not even just with this one, but with every one. They are always somehow deficient without you being able to offer anything meaningful or intelligent. Just fucking ranting and stupidity.

Here is what I said before:
"It has nothing to do with the ruleset, it's the nature of things. Same in real life, staring out when all your options are open, making steps that open some doors, and close other is more interesting (from char development point of view) then becoming whatever it is you wanted to be. At this point the journey is basically over, and that was my point. Any game I've ever played was like that from FO to BG2 to Diablo 2. It doesn't mean, of course, that a system where char development at higher level is as good as it is at low levels couldn't be done, but would that be fun? The goal of char development is to become good at something, and the moment that you actually manage to do that, you lose some interest because you've achieved your goal"

And Whirling Death doesn't reach it's goal until level 36. Of course, when I pointed that out you changed your definition so that increases in skill power don't matter. Funny how you can't stick with an argument for more than 5 seconds!

Must come from being retarded.

By the way, just to stop you now: Whirling Death does not become good at anything really until after level 20, so he is certainly still developing by this definition. He's also gaining new spells all the way to level 20, which covers your OTHer definition for developing.

Got a third one to switch to?

I doubt that. The standards you've set are way to high.

What, being right all the time? Being consistant? Not contradicting myself? Having actual logic for my arguments?

No, being stupid.

HAH! Creative one there. That insult was worthy of a halibut! Hell, maybe only a lutefisk could come up with something THAT witty!

It's funny how you can fail to understand simple english, or even iunderstand what YOU yourself are saying but I'm being stupid... heh.

Ok, fine, to reply to your point, I think that Palpatine character was developed and defined way before he was killed. He may have gained a few more feats and abilities but that was icing on a cake.

Which definition is this by? The becoming better at what you do definition, or the gaining completely new abilities definition?

And if Palpatine was so well developed so early, he obviously shouldn't have been included in Return of the Jedi. He was already done and boring, right?

What's with the words twisting? I said that a Sith Lord and an Emperor wouldn't ally with the Jedi for some chick, that's too petty and stupid (well, that explains why you liked that idea). He would have different means of getting what he wants.

No, YOUR Sith Lord wouldn't. Palpatine _might_ not, you don't really know. Mine would love the opportunity to corrupt a jedi, have his way with her and then dump her ass so that her hatred of me drives her to the dark side. Maybe you just aren't very good at the evil thing?

Oh wait, I forgot that if you can't imagine something it can't be done...

You are not going to cry now, are you?

Maybe... your idiocy is destroying my faith in humanity. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you voted for Bush at this point...

Funny how once again you skirt the issue rather than trying to respond to the point I was making.

The first game would suck though being pointless, incomplete, and leading nowhere.

Wow, what a well thought out and valid response. You also obviously gave it an actual try and thought of a game too! Oh, wait... no you just had a knee jerk reaction and posted it without thinking. My bad, I forgot you never think.

So no game in history has sub-plots that wrap up and could be made into subdivisions? Hell, they could've ended ToEE right after clearing the moathouse, and it would've looked like a complete, though very short, game. Then they could just store all the variables and start up a second game from the moathouse to killing Zuggotmy while keeping all the choices you made. People i nthe town would still act as if you had or hadn't matched them up, or converted their religions or whatever. Hell, you could still have it so you could go do those quests in the second game.

Depends on a quest. Like I said I prefer something more complex than "bring me some creature skins". Sand people are VERY different from Jawas, and I'd expect that to be reflected in their quests. Sand people are fighters, they don't like you and want to kill you on sight. Jawas are traders, they need protection or good trades, and have no need to kill or intimidate a potential customer. I hope you realize that any *complex* quests involving them would have to be totally different and wouldn't work with both of them.

Like you said, "depends on a quest."

Just because you can't imagine it, does not mean it can't be done.

And once again, developers who wanted to could make seperate quests for the different scenarios.

And that's the impossible part, assuming that the choices in the previous game led to something.

No, it isn't. You just make the second game account for whatever the choices led to. The exact same way you would have to in a single game.

No. If you wipe them, and then go back there would be no quest there, assuming that there was one. Simple as that.

Same thing in a sequel.

A sequel would have to PICK ONE scenario and go with it.

No it wouldn't. It would just read what scenario you picked and present the consequences of that to you in the second game.

There are plenty of choices in Geneforge, yet it would impossible to reflect them all in GF2. The game picks one and goes with it. There is no other way. A pity you don't see it.

Yes there is another way. You keep track of the choices, then develop GF2 to have accounted for all the necessary ones. The only choice which would be difficult is one which resulted in the dudes not getting off that island, and someone more creative than me could probably come up with something. The only choice which would make GF2 impossible would be killing all of them.

Yet, the examples I gave were from a single game, weren't they? You lose.

I do? Hardly. First of all, you said the examples you gave didn't affect much in KOTOR so they are hardly complex choices. Second, that only means it is just as possible to do between games.

Either way you lose.

 

[Vault Dweller]

YEah, funny how it's ok for you retards to constantly insult me, but I get called on it. HILARIOUS actually!

I know it's hard for you to keep track of the events, but you were the one who started insulting in this thread, being unable to argue without that crap. If you thought I wouldn't reply you were mistaken. Again.

And you're just being a bigger idiot with every post. Your ENTIRE argument boils down to "I can't imagine something, and don't <i>like</i> the scenarios Sarvis comes up with, so it's impossible to do."

No, my argument is that it's impossible to do that in a proper CRPG (the one with choices and consequences) because the choices would create too many often completely different options and developers would have to pick one out of several, thus screwing characters who took different options (GF, GF2). You disagreed and supplied several idiotic examples as a proof, saying it's possible, " don't ask me how, I just know it". Whatever, Sarvis.

Sorry, but this isn't third grade and you are obviously not the smartest or most creative human who has ever existed. People do things you are unable to think of all the time.

That's your argument? It's like saying "The sun is yellow and people are mammals". True, but pointless.

I'm sorry if I got confused by your utter lack of consistancy!

It's ok, I'm not surprised that you are confused, but I'm glad you can admit that and ask for help[/qoute]
It's just hard to keep up when you completely fail to say anything sensible or even use the language properly.

Ah, when everything else fails use the language attack? Anyway, that's coming from a guy who wrote disclude instead of exclude...

Childish? ROFL. Sorry if pointing out the meaning of a word to someone who has no clue about it is childish. Oh wait, you just tried to do that. now who's being childish? Listen you fucktard, a subclass of Object IS Object. It's the entire fucking basis of Object Oriented Programming, not that I'd expect you to be able to deal with a simple concept.

Fucktard? You are getting too emotional, Sarvis. (see the reply to that sub-class thing below)

Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, under, below, secretly, from below, up, near, from sub under, close to -- more at UP
1 : under : beneath : below <subsoil> <subaqueous>
2 a : subordinate : secondary : next lower than or inferior to <substation> <subeditor> b : subordinate portion of : subdivision of <subcommittee> <subspecies> c : with repetition (as of a process) so as to form, stress, or deal with subordinate parts or relations <sublet> <subcontract>
3 : less than completely, perfectly, or normally : somewhat <subacute> <subclinical>
4 a : almost : nearly <suberect> b : falling nearly in the category of and often adjoining : bordering on <subarctic>

I'll guess you are going with 4a as your definition when using sub-class? Good, good. Good for you.

God, you are stupid. Every one of the definitions here points to "less than" concept. Can you grasp that?

Or, perhaps, if you take a group of RPGs and subdivide them into Dungeon Crawl or Story Driven you still have RPGs! It's AMAZING what you can learn when you understand simple English! It really is.

And humans are technically animals, yet humans have very distinctive characteristics that set them way, way apart from the original group and any other "sub-classes", and that's why we don't call them that. Same here. Learn to read AND comprehend, it's AMAZING what you can learn!

Yeah yeah, nothing EVER fits your definition because your definition seems to change every time someone puts up an example of it.

No, you are too stupid to understand a simple thing, and keep coming up with lame and often made-up examples. If you want to argue and be taken seriously, try to keep pace, otherwise post in the Retardo Land forums.

Assuming that I was correct about Deus Ex, you CAN play your character in different ways according to his skills. If you don't pick locks, you will suck at it and not pick locks in the future. If you don't kill people often, you will suck at fighting and avoid it. If you fight and pick locks a lot, you will get good at those things and do them.

What a load of crap. Have you even played the fucking game? If you don't pick locks you will suck at it? I'm sure that you are going to cry again that I don't respond to your arguments, but this is just ridiculous. You have absolutely no clue about gameplay of the game you are talking about it, and you expect me to take this idiocy seriously? You are mistaken yet again.

It's not the same example, you dumb fuck. A single US marine wiping out a US town all by his fucking self would have been the same example in a real life situation. A single US marine from your example killing an African tribe isn't the same. If you don't get that, you are really fucking stupid and unable to understand, evaluate, and compare basic concepts.

And Gauss rifles are probably advanced enough weaponry that handguns would be as effective as stone tipped spears by comparison.

However, to entertain your stupidity what if we gave the marine a guass rifle and sent him into an average city in America? He'd still wipe it out because of the advanced hardware, so that makes him a demi-god?

It's funny how you never acytually respond to the examples, just claim they are bad examples. ALWAYS. Not even just with this one, but with every one. They are always somehow deficient without you being able to offer anything meaningful or intelligent. Just fucking ranting and stupidity.

"they (Sarvis' examples) are always somehow deficinet..." Yes, they are. That's what earned you the dumbfuck rank, and it wasn't even me who did that, btw. Understand, Sarvis, your examples are stupid. Literally. It's not a flame. If you can't understand a discussion and provide an example that fits, I won't waste my time trying to evaluate your example and show how stupid it is. I believe I explained enough above and even gave you a better analogy to give you a clue which you ignored. And no, a single US marine won't be able to wipe an average US town by himself. Regardless of the hardware, he's still very vulnerable. A demi-god would be much harder to kill, wouldn't you agree? There, happy?

Here is what I said before:
"It has nothing to do with the ruleset, it's the nature of things. Same in real life, staring out when all your options are open, making steps that open some doors, and close other is more interesting (from char development point of view) then becoming whatever it is you wanted to be. At this point the journey is basically over, and that was my point. Any game I've ever played was like that from FO to BG2 to Diablo 2. It doesn't mean, of course, that a system where char development at higher level is as good as it is at low levels couldn't be done, but would that be fun? The goal of char development is to become good at something, and the moment that you actually manage to do that, you lose some interest because you've achieved your goal"

And Whirling Death doesn't reach it's goal until level 36. Of course, when I pointed that out you changed your definition so that increases in skill power don't matter. Funny how you can't stick with an argument for more than 5 seconds!

I'm getting tired of your bullshit, Sarvis. First, I didn't change my definition, I pointed out what I said BEFORE, at the beginning of this thread. Second, read what I wrote. A specific skill is not a goal, you idiot. Besides, as I keep saying that's my opinion only, if you feel otherwise, be my fucking guest. Nobody gives a damn.

And if Palpatine was so well developed so early, he obviously shouldn't have been included in Return of the Jedi. He was already done and boring, right?

It's like arguing with a kid. A movie is not a game, kid. They follow different rules, and what's important in a game may not be important in a movie for a bunch of really complicated reasons that are obviously above your comprehension.

The first game would suck though being pointless, incomplete, and leading nowhere.

Wow, what a well thought out and valid response. You also obviously gave it an actual try and thought of a game too! Oh, wait... no you just had a knee jerk reaction and posted it without thinking. My bad, I forgot you never think.

So no game in history has sub-plots that wrap up and could be made into subdivisions? Hell, they could've ended ToEE right after clearing the moathouse, and it would've looked like a complete, though very short, game.

And that (ToEE: the Moathouse) is what I would call a "pointless, incomplete, and leading nowhere". And no, it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction.

Depends on a quest. Like I said I prefer something more complex than "bring me some creature skins". Sand people are VERY different from Jawas, and I'd expect that to be reflected in their quests. Sand people are fighters, they don't like you and want to kill you on sight. Jawas are traders, they need protection or good trades, and have no need to kill or intimidate a potential customer. I hope you realize that any *complex* quests involving them would have to be totally different and wouldn't work with both of them.

Like you said, "depends on a quest."

Just because you can't imagine it, does not mean it can't be done.

Then show me, give an example based on the above.

No, it isn't. You just make the second game account for whatever the choices led to. The exact same way you would have to in a single game.
...

Same thing in a sequel.

Only if a sequel would come with different maps including quests for every important choice you've made. That's the impossible part.

A sequel would have to PICK ONE scenario and go with it.

No it wouldn't. It would just read what scenario you picked and present the consequences of that to you in the second game.

Ok, KOTOR, you either saved the galaxy and became the worst Sith Lord, at least in the next 4,000 years. Present these consequences in the second game, assuming that it imports your character.

Yes there is another way. You keep track of the choices, then develop GF2 to have accounted for all the necessary ones. The only choice which would be difficult is one which resulted in the dudes not getting off that island, and someone more creative than me could probably come up with something. The only choice which would make GF2 impossible would be killing all of them.

You can't. The geneforge and the faction are important to that storyline. It's important to know what happened to it, to the research, and to people. You make all those choices in the first game, and the fact that you have to make those choices is what makes the game so highly recommended here. It's impossible to relate a new story to the events of the first game, without having to pick one of the choices.

I do? Hardly. First of all, you said the examples you gave didn't affect much in KOTOR so they are hardly complex choices. Second, that only means it is just as possible to do between games.

First, the examples were from ToEE, pay attention. Second, it's possible to do them in one game because you are writing the story as you go. It's impossible to do between games, because the story is already written, and you can't make a second game that accounts for all variants that could have taken place.

Anyway, as usual, this discussion is going nowhere. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. Calling each other idiots is entertaining but it would become boring soon, let's move on and let this thread die in peace.

 

[EvilManagedCare]

Well, the only games I can think of that have allowed character importation in sequels are a bunch of D&D franchises (Gold Box series, BG->BG2, SOU->HOTU, EOB series) and the Wizardry & Bard's Tale series.

Don't forget my personal favorite series: Realms of Arkania. I liked the continuity this created. In the case of Star Trail (the second game), importing the party from the first game was almost necessary to enjoy the initial stages of the game. Doing so didn't make it too easy, either. IIRC the game was almost impossible (I mean, beyond the normal struggles a lower level party has) if you didn't import the party from Blade of Destiny.

Didn't Ultima 3 allow the importing of characters from Wizardry or something like that?

 

[Sarvis]

I know it's hard for you to keep track of the events, but you were the one who started insulting in this thread, being unable to argue without that crap. If you thought I wouldn't reply you were mistaken. Again.

In this thread? I said codexers were narrow minded in general, hardly a personal insult. And the Codex in gneeral has long insulted my by labeling me as illiterate and then a dumbfuck, so you can hardly claim that I started it.

No, my argument is that it's impossible to do that in a proper CRPG (the one with choices and consequences) because the choices would create too many often completely different options and developers would have to pick one out of several, thus screwing characters who took different options (GF, GF2).

Yes, this is exactly what I said. You claim it is impossible but offer absolutely NO rational for that. All you are saying is that you cannot think of how to do it, while by claiming my examples are idiotic you are simply insulting me and pointing out you don't like the scenarios I came up with.

The simple fact is that in a single game every choice that has consequences will have ramifications to the plot and how it can be carried out. Within that game developers must always account for those changes, unless they were inconsequencial. If you put the artificial barrier of a release date between two parts of a single large storyline nothing is actually changed except that the developers have to transport that data between games. Even that is only necessary if the sequel occurs in the exact same places as the original game. Few of the choices your Sith Lord made, for instance, would have any bearing if he was doing something else on the other side of the galaxy.

Arguments that long stories split up among shorter games creates incomplete game experiences is also easily disproved by pointing out series such as the Legacy of Kain games. In those games there is a very large over-reaching plot, yet every game is a complete story in and of itself... well, except for Soul Reaver. Metal Gear Solid would be another example of a series in which large stories of political intrigues are expressed in complete shorter games.

Childish? ROFL. Sorry if pointing out the meaning of a word to someone who has no clue about it is childish. Oh wait, you just tried to do that. now who's being childish? Listen you fucktard, a subclass of Object IS Object. It's the entire fucking basis of Object Oriented Programming, not that I'd expect you to be able to deal with a simple concept.

Fucktard? You are getting too emotional, Sarvis. (see the reply to that sub-class thing below)

Again you just skip the content.

God, you are stupid. Every one of the definitions here points to "less than" concept. Can you grasp that?

Can you grasp that you are wrong? That the definition of subclass itself uses the less than concept in a different way? Subclass means less general than.

Car goes to the less general Honda Civic
Animal goes to the less general Human
CRPG goes to the less general Dungeon Crawler

Shifts between Dungeon Crawler and Roguelike are lateral shifts under the general concept of RPGs. That is to say, they are at the same level but take different aspects of the "parent" or add new aspects of their own.

Humans avoid calling themselves animals purely out of ego, however we are technically classified as mammals. In fact, you would find far more difference between a wolf and a chimpanzee than between a chimpanzee and a human, and this is reflected in taxonomy by using subdivisions. At the Order level chimpanzees and humans are both Primates while the wolf is Carnivora. However humans, because of their ego, would point at both wolves and chimpanzees as animals.

It's actually quite similar to how you point at CRPGs like Falout and claim everything else is <i>something else</i>. Well, they are. But they are still CRPGs.

But I'm sure that's just another idiotic example right? Or is it simply that the whole concept of classification is outside your realm of understanding?

What a load of crap. Have you even played the fucking game? If you don't pick locks you will suck at it? I'm sure that you are going to cry again that I don't respond to your arguments, but this is just ridiculous. You have absolutely no clue about gameplay of the game you are talking about it, and you expect me to take this idiocy seriously? You are mistaken yet again.

Fine, you caught me talking about a game I only played briefly. Of course, you haven't actually said anything about how I was wrong. It's just assumed that I am because you say so. I do seem to remember there being a skill for tool use or something, and that affected what you used for lockpicks. But hey, what do I know? You said I was wrong...

"they (Sarvis' examples) are always somehow deficinet..." Yes, they are. That's what earned you the dumbfuck rank, and it wasn't even me who did that, btw. Understand, Sarvis, your examples are stupid. Literally. It's not a flame. If you can't understand a discussion and provide an example that fits, I won't waste my time trying to evaluate your example and show how stupid it is. I believe I explained enough above and even gave you a better analogy to give you a clue which you ignored. And no, a single US marine won't be able to wipe an average US town by himself. Regardless of the hardware, he's still very vulnerable. A demi-god would be much harder to kill, wouldn't you agree? There, happy?

Look, I'll just spell this out then: You are claiming people are demi-gods because they have advanced weaponry. Advanced technology does not confer supernatural abilities upon a character, therefore they are not demi-gods.

Even if they were, there are few reasons why you couldn't have interesting quests or games for "demi-gods." Hell, Hordes of the Underdark was far better than the other "low level" NWN games.

I'm getting tired of your bullshit, Sarvis. First, I didn't change my definition, I pointed out what I said BEFORE, at the beginning of this thread. Second, read what I wrote. A specific skill is not a goal, you idiot. Besides, as I keep saying that's my opinion only, if you feel otherwise, be my fucking guest. Nobody gives a damn.

Yes, but what you said in the middle of the thread is different than what you said in the beginning of the thread.

You are simply ignoring the fact that the <i>concept</i> for the class is to have a character who can instantly kill roughly half the enemies in a ten foot radius with one attack. It can't do anything like that at level 15, so more development must be necessary. Whirlwind Attack is a fairly key aspect of that development, and you are simply discounting it out of hand to make a lame argument.

Saying Whirling Death stops developing at level 15, when it doesn't look ANYTHING like the finished class is far more ludicrous than any example I've ever posted. It would be like saying Luke stopped developing his Jedi powers before going to Dagobah, when he actually keeps developing and strengthening long after the movies end. (Or at least that's what I hear since I never read the books...)

It's like arguing with a kid. A movie is not a game, kid. They follow different rules, and what's important in a game may not be important in a movie for a bunch of really complicated reasons that are obviously above your comprehension.

Then how come it's ok for you to constantly refer to a movie character to support your arguments?

And that (ToEE: the Moathouse) is what I would call a "pointless, incomplete, and leading nowhere". And no, it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction.

Really? That's great. That's just great. Because it seems to me that it would make a fairly complete quest, especially if filled out a little more. Maybe make the forest dungeon longer and more involved instead of just walking into the moathouse.

In fact when you really boil it down what's the difference between the moathouse and the actual temple? Length and level. Both are simple "invade enemy stronghold and kill the enemy" scenarios. There's no reason the moathouse couldn't make just as complete a game as the temple itself, except of course that you are unwilling to think of how it could be done.

Then show me, give an example based on the above.

Why bother, all my examples are idiotic remember? Because obviously anything that isn't already in a game MUST be idiotic. People like you probably told Gygax it was idiotic to have a game played by looking up numbers in tables and rolling dice.

Only if a sequel would come with different maps including quests for every important choice you've made. That's the impossible part.

You'd need those same things in single games.

Again, even that is only necessary if you keep re-using the same areas.

Ok, KOTOR, you either saved the galaxy and became the worst Sith Lord, at least in the next 4,000 years. Present these consequences in the second game, assuming that it imports your character.

Simple. A race from outside the known galaxy invades. If you saved the galaxy you are called upon to defend it from these guys, and if you were the Sith Lord you just want to stop them from taking over YOUR galaxy. (I'm assuming you rule the galaxy as aSith Lord right?)

You can't. The geneforge and the faction are important to that storyline. It's important to know what happened to it, to the research, and to people. You make all those choices in the first game, and the fact that you have to make those choices is what makes the game so highly recommended here. It's impossible to relate a new story to the events of the first game, without having to pick one of the choices.

You keep saying that, but there is no actual reason you can't. Except in the case of having killed all the thrall dudes. (Or whatever they're called...)

I don't know the endings so I can't come up with examples of how it could be done, but essentially of you can pick any one of the scenarios and write the sequel based on that you can do so and then just tie them together at some point to continue on.

I'll assume for the sake of argument that you could either help them off the island or not help them. If you don't help them, they found their own way off the island. Then the main difference would be in how they react to your presence, and since GF2 already DOES react to which faction you join they could just make it part of that.

First, the examples were from ToEE, pay attention. Second, it's possible to do them in one game because you are writing the story as you go. It's impossible to do between games, because the story is already written, and you can't make a second game that accounts for all variants that could have taken place.

You've been using examples from both KOTOR and ToEE, so saying the examples you gave were from a single game is pretty ludicrous. Not to mention that the choices in ToEE you have ALSO claimed don't affect the game much.

You are correct about writing the story as you go, but you are ALWAYS doing that in a game. Any meaningful choice should create ramifications within a story, and those results should be shown within a single game or across games.

For instance in ToEE you have the choice to ally with the guy leading the moathouse, except that the choice is meaningless because he just betrays you at the entrance to the temple. Properly done the rest of the game should have you carrying out missions from the moathouse for the greater glory of the brigands and the Temple.

The option they went with of having him betray you could easily have been represented in a seperate game. The other option of having you do missions for the temple might actually be _easier_ since they'd have more development time by splitting up the games!

 

[suibhne]

Seriously, it's not as if I read every thread on these forums...

I don't expect you to do so. You might recall your own ignorance, though, when you're tempted to broadly characterize the entire forum in the future, on Arcanum or any other subject.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I hope I'm invited to the wedding. I love weddings.

 

[suibhne]

I hope I'm invited to the wedding. I love weddings.

This one would be at least, ah, entertaining.

Do you think they'll write their own vows? :D

 

[DemonKing]

Didn't Ultima 3 allow the importing of characters from Wizardry or something like that?

You could import Wizardry characters *or* Ultima 3 characters into the original Bard's Tale. Not sure how they did the conversion, because Ultima characters were very different to Bard's Tale characters.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Appreciate that you cut the insults, Sarvis. I'll return the courtesy.

Yes, this is exactly what I said. You claim it is impossible but offer absolutely NO rational for that. All you are saying is that you cannot think of how to do it, while by claiming my examples are idiotic you are simply insulting me and pointing out you don't like the scenarios I came up with.

The simple fact is that in a single game every choice that has consequences will have ramifications to the plot and how it can be carried out. Within that game developers must always account for those changes, unless they were inconsequencial.

Like I said, in a single game you write the story as you go. In the sequel, the story, related to the first game, is already written and should be reflected. The choices may have been meaningless in the first game (ToEE, KOTOR) but they've created something that just can't be ignored. For example, ToEE stated the specific results of your actions in the end. If a sequel were to take place a few years later, the pirate town would have to be dealt with somehow. In the first game, you could do some quests defining the future of the town, but never see the results of your actions. In the sequel, something should be shown, new quests, new NPCs, etc. A side, a specific storyline should picked. Of course, there could be cheap workarounds, like "they all died anyway", but that would make your past choices pointless.

Even that is only necessary if the sequel occurs in the exact same places as the original game.

It's a sequel. It has the same characters from the prev games. Why bother importing characters if you are not going to tie the events with the prev game? Even in BG2, a game that took place somewhere else, there were some assumptions about characters you travelled with and some choices you've made.

Shifts between Dungeon Crawler and Roguelike are lateral shifts under the general concept of RPGs. That is to say, they are at the same level but take different aspects of the "parent" or add new aspects of their own.

They are so removed from the parent that they form a class of their own and are a sub-class only technically. You can put both a rogue-like and BG2 under one roof but that would be a pointless exercise that serves no purpose. Similarly you can say that a human and a mouse belong to the same class - animal, the difference, overall, not only on the cell level, is huge. We build cities and creatively kill each other, they run in our mazes.

Humans avoid calling themselves animals purely out of ego, however we are technically classified as mammals. In fact, you would find far more difference between a wolf and a chimpanzee than between a chimpanzee and a human, and this is reflected in taxonomy by using subdivisions. At the Order level chimpanzees and humans are both Primates while the wolf is Carnivora. However humans, because of their ego, would point at both wolves and chimpanzees as animals.

You missed the part where we rule the world and populate internet forums. While it's not a biological trait, tools making is what sets us apart in a major way.

It's actually quite similar to how you point at CRPGs like Falout and claim everything else is <i>something else</i>. Well, they are. But they are still CRPGs.

You can think what you want and define things in any way you like, but, imo, Bloodlines is much closer to Deus Ex, a game you said is not an RPG, and Quake, then to Fallout and BG, not to mention rogue-likes.

Fine, you caught me talking about a game I only played briefly. Of course, you haven't actually said anything about how I was wrong. It's just assumed that I am because you say so. I do seem to remember there being a skill for tool use or something, and that affected what you used for lockpicks. But hey, what do I know? You said I was wrong...

Ok, fair enough. In DE skills like lockpick only decrease the number of lockpicks required. That's all. You could have a very low skill, but enough lockpicks to open something. It was irrelevant how often you do that, in fact, the less you do that, the more lockpicks you have left for something else to open. If you have only 1 lockpick but maxed out skill, you still wouldn't be able to open anything. Thus the skill was useless.

Look, I'll just spell this out then: You are claiming people are demi-gods because they have advanced weaponry. Advanced technology does not confer supernatural abilities upon a character, therefore they are not demi-gods.

No, I didn't. The reference was to the overall abilities of a character including but not limited to advanced weaponry. Other skills and abilities are as important. In terms of games - HPs, defense abilities (spells, armor, energy shields, etc), abilties to use weapons effectively, etc. A regular soldier goes down easily, as the events in Iraq show. A supermutant or an Enclave soldier with tons of HPs, power armor, and plasma/gauss weapons is a much more formidable opponent against an average FO town like Den or Junktown for example where there are no adequate means of defense.

Even if they were, there are few reasons why you couldn't have interesting quests or games for "demi-gods." Hell, Hordes of the Underdark was far better than the other "low level" NWN games.

I never said you can't, I said it's less interesting, I believe (too lazy to look for the exact quote). As for HotU, while it was better than NWN OC, that hardly says much. I didn't play it though, so I'm unable to comment further.

Yes, but what you said in the middle of the thread is different than what you said in the beginning of the thread.

I disagree. What I said in the middle was "... by the time you hit high levels, you've already made all the important choices and defined your character in terms of specific skills, feats, and abilities. All that's left is to polish what you have, improve the existing skills basically". As I explained there, even new skills like Whirlwind or Sniper fall under the "improvement of the existing skills" category. I don't believe it adds much to the character. You may argue that you are making a whirling death or deadly shot type chartacter, and that skill is important to you and in fact the entire build is based on that skill, but that's powergaming to me.

You are simply ignoring the fact that the <i>concept</i> for the class is to have a character who can instantly kill roughly half the enemies in a ten foot radius with one attack. It can't do anything like that at level 15, so more development must be necessary. Whirlwind Attack is a fairly key aspect of that development, and you are simply discounting it out of hand to make a lame argument.

And Sniper is a key aspect of a sniper character. See above.

Then how come it's ok for you to constantly refer to a movie character to support your arguments?

I referred to the personality and behavior, not to the "build" and skills analysis like you did.

And that (ToEE: the Moathouse) is what I would call a "pointless, incomplete, and leading nowhere". And no, it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction.

There's no reason the moathouse couldn't make just as complete a game as the temple itself, except of course that you are unwilling to think of how it could be done.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it would be a pointless game. Of course, you could improve the quest, add more stuff, but than it would be something else, and it may create all that transition problems we've discussed in that thread.

I don't know the endings so I can't come up with examples of how it could be done, but essentially of you can pick any one of the scenarios and write the sequel based on that you can do so and then just tie them together at some point to continue on.

I'll assume for the sake of argument that you could either help them off the island or not help them. If you don't help them, they found their own way off the island. Then the main difference would be in how they react to your presence, and since GF2 already DOES react to which faction you join they could just make it part of that.

It's more complicated than that. It involves more than just people, it involves the geneforge itself. For that particular game it's impossible to make a sequel reflecting all the changes you've made in the first game (without pulling something stupid like "someone went back in time and undid all the changes")

Not to mention that the choices in ToEE you have ALSO claimed don't affect the game much.

Like I said, the choices may have been meaningless in the first game (ToEE, KOTOR) but they've created something that just can't be ignored. Developers can easily create a lot of seemingly meaningful choices that don't lead anywhere because the game is over now, but in a second game they have to deal with it because saying "ah, nobody noticed what you did" is even more lame, than making meaningless choices in the first game. Possible, but lame.

You are correct about writing the story as you go, but you are ALWAYS doing that in a game. Any meaningful choice should create ramifications within a story, and those results should be shown within a single game or across games.

Not necessary. In many cases, you don;t create instant effects. It would take some time for the effects to develop, and by the time the effects are due, the game is over. That's what both ToEE and KOTOR did. A second game should, imo, show these effects, pick one storyline and show it; but that would create some issues with all those who made different choices.

For instance in ToEE you have the choice to ally with the guy leading the moathouse, except that the choice is meaningless because he just betrays you at the entrance to the temple. Properly done the rest of the game should have you carrying out missions from the moathouse for the greater glory of the brigands and the Temple.

No arguing here, that should have been implemented better. However, if we stop the game after this quest, and continue in a new game, there is a question of whether or not you cleaned the Moathouse and killed Lareth. That basically requires 2 different maps for the same locations and optional quests if you didn't. Of course, you may repopulate that place with some other bandits/temple agents if you did clean it, but, like I said, that the part that I dislike in sequels.

 

[Sarvis]

Anyway, as usual, this discussion is going nowhere. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. Calling each other idiots is entertaining but it would become boring soon, let's move on and let this thread die in peace.

Actually the difference between us, and the reason I keep saying you are narrowminded, is that you COULD convince me if you provided any evidence or good reasoning for your position. Whenever someone has posted something showing I was wrong on a point I have relented. For instance when you pointed out that I used "disclude" incorrectly I admitted my mistake. As a contrast, when I pointed out that you used "subclass" incorrectly you posted the definition of the prefix and tried to show that the word meant what you meant rather than what it actually means.

In the same way you keep saying that it is impossible to carry meaningful choices across games, but have never offered any reasoning whatsoever why this is so. I have offered examples (whether they are bad or not), and said how it could be accomplished from a purely technical standpoint. Essentially the only thing keeping developers with accounting for choices across multiple games is time and money, which are the same things I have held forth prevent it from being done in a single game.

In short: I'm willing to reconsider, but you have to offer something that would make me. Instead you just keep insulting me and saying my examples aren't good enough for you. They don't have to be good, they just have to be possible to disprove your argument of impossibility.


EDIT: You know, I specifically responded to that paragraph in a new post, instead of editing my last one, because I thought you might be in the process of replying!

 

[Sarvis]

Like I said, in a single game you write the story as you go. In the sequel, the story, related to the first game, is already written and should be reflected. The choices may have been meaningless in the first game (ToEE, KOTOR) but they've created something that just can't be ignored. For example, ToEE stated the specific results of your actions in the end. If a sequel were to take place a few years later, the pirate town would have to be dealt with somehow. In the first game, you could do some quests defining the future of the town, but never see the results of your actions. In the sequel, something should be shown, new quests, new NPCs, etc. A side, a specific storyline should picked. Of course, there could be cheap workarounds, like "they all died anyway", but that would make your past choices pointless.

The pirate town isn't a great example for you. All that really changes is the population of the town. If the player drove off the pirates there just aren't any pirates in the town, if they did not the town appears pretty much exactly like it does in the first game.

It's a sequel. It has the same characters from the prev games. Why bother importing characters if you are not going to tie the events with the prev game? Even in BG2, a game that took place somewhere else, there were some assumptions about characters you travelled with and some choices you've made.

Those could be kept track of. Also there are many series games where the events aren't really related. The Gold Box games all took pace in completely different areas, without paying any attention to what had gone on before.

If the story and choices are more important, or more local then you still only need to keep track of the most important ones and account for them. I'd also say that some choices SHOULD be trivialized. It's a bit more realistic that way. I mean, how many people went to college to improve their lives and then ended up working at Wal-Mart anyway thanks to the recession a couple years ago?

They are so removed from the parent that they form a class of their own and are a sub-class only technically. You can put both a rogue-like and BG2 under one roof but that would be a pointless exercise that serves no purpose.

They are not that far removed from each other. Remember that while they are in many ways different they do share certain similar properties, such as stats and skills.

Similarly you can say that a human and a mouse belong to the same class - animal, the difference, overall, not only on the cell level, is huge. We build cities and creatively kill each other, they run in our mazes.

Actually mice are quite similar to humans genetically. That is WHY they run around in our mazes, they are close enough to humans that experimenting on them helps us learn about humans and cure diseases.

The differences between mice and humans are largely on the surface. We are shaped differently, but at a someone more basic level we are very similar. (Just don't tell that to Creationists! )

You missed the part where we rule the world and populate internet forums. While it's not a biological trait, tools making is what sets us apart in a major way.

Actually apes do use simple tools. Give them another million years and they might be inventing their first projectile weapon... heh.

]
You can think what you want and define things in any way you like, but, imo, Bloodlines is much closer to Deus Ex, a game you said is not an RPG, and Quake, then to Fallout and BG, not to mention rogue-likes.

Haven't played Bloodlines. Err... you are referring to the Vampire the Masquerade game? Because it looks like it would play a lot like BG from the couple of screenshots I've seen...

No, I didn't. The reference was to the overall abilities of a character including but not limited to advanced weaponry. Other skills and abilities are as important. In terms of games - HPs, defense abilities (spells, armor, energy shields, etc), abilties to use weapons effectively, etc. A regular soldier goes down easily, as the events in Iraq show. A supermutant or an Enclave soldier with tons of HPs, power armor, and plasma/gauss weapons is a much more formidable opponent against an average FO town like Den or Junktown for example where there are no adequate means of defense.

Take away the gauss rifles and power armor and how long is an Enclave soldier going to last? Hitpoints? Well unfortunately there are no hitpoints in real life. If there were marines would probably have quite a lot compared to your average fat lazy American.

I never said you can't, I said it's less interesting, I believe (too lazy to look for the exact quote). As for HotU, while it was better than NWN OC, that hardly says much. I didn't play it though, so I'm unable to comment further.

I'm saying that the quests in HoTU were far MORE interesting. Not only that, but the wide array of skills and powers available should make for more interesting quests.

I know you haven't played it, but I don't think you'll find anyone who says HoTU was less interesting than Shadows of Undrentide expansion... which was also quite a lot better than the NWN OC. This is despite HoTU being an epic level campaign while SoU was low level.

I disagree. What I said in the middle was "... by the time you hit high levels, you've already made all the important choices and defined your character in terms of specific skills, feats, and abilities. All that's left is to polish what you have, improve the existing skills basically". As I explained there, even new skills like Whirlwind or Sniper fall under the "improvement of the existing skills" category.

At which point Iasked you to explain which skill Whirlwind Attack is an improvement of. Your response was to not answer the question and go on about how adding a single skill wasn't character development.

You have NOT made all the important choices for the Whirling Death class at level 15. If you don't take whirlwind Attack at 18 you end up with a much different class.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it would be a pointless game. Of course, you could improve the quest, add more stuff, but than it would be something else, and it may create all that transition problems we've discussed in that thread.

There's really not much more substance to the full ToEE game.

It's more complicated than that. It involves more than just people, it involves the geneforge itself. For that particular game it's impossible to make a sequel reflecting all the changes you've made in the first game (without pulling something stupid like "someone went back in time and undid all the changes")

I doubt that is true. List some of the scenarios you think would be impossible to account for and I'll take a crack at it.

You thought it would be impossible to account for both a Sith Lord and Jedi Hero after KOTOR too, but I'm guessing by your silence on that point that I came up with something acceptable.

Like I said, the choices may have been meaningless in the first game (ToEE, KOTOR) but they've created something that just can't be ignored. Developers can easily create a lot of seemingly meaningful choices that don't lead anywhere because the game is over now, but in a second game they have to deal with it because saying "ah, nobody noticed what you did" is even more lame, than making meaningless choices in the first game. Possible, but lame.

If the game happens right after the first game those changes still wouldn't have taken effect.

Not necessary. In many cases, you don;t create instant effects. It would take some time for the effects to develop, and by the time the effects are due, the game is over. That's what both ToEE and KOTOR did. A second game should, imo, show these effects, pick one storyline and show it; but that would create some issues with all those who made different choices.

You just need to keep track of those changes and ensure the new plot can account for as many of them as possible. If you plan it out ahead of time you can even ensure that all choices can be accounted for with a minimum of extra effort.

No arguing here, that should have been implemented better. However, if we stop the game after this quest, and continue in a new game, there is a question of whether or not you cleaned the Moathouse and killed Lareth. That basically requires 2 different maps for the same locations and optional quests if you didn't. Of course, you may repopulate that place with some other bandits/temple agents if you did clean it, but, like I said, that the part that I dislike in sequels.

No, this would be happening immediately after. Therefore the moathouse would either stay cleared, or be a friendly "town" based on your choice with Lareth. Doesn't require different maps at all, just different creature spawns.

As an interesting aside when you mentioned AtG I trucked over to the ToEE board to see if they were talking about a sequel. Reading a thread on exactly that subject there was a post where they were talking about having players mod the game to increase the game experience, and one of the ways someone suggested was to have monsters move into the moathouse after you entered the temple.

 

[Ortchel]

Well, the only games I can think of that have allowed character importation in sequels are a bunch of D&D franchises (Gold Box series, BG->BG2, SOU->HOTU, EOB series) and the Wizardry & Bard's Tale series.

Quest For Glory did, as well.

 

[almondblight]

I don't see any real problems with importing characters, but maybe that's because I'm used to module games like Realmz or BoE that pretty much require it. If you want to use the traditional RPG experience treadmill you just have to make sure that you don't reach the end before the series is over. This can easily be accomplished by taking away the "cut through hundreds of hordes of monsters" missions. For instance, I'm told IWD is shorter than BG even though one will reach higher levels in the former.

Again, if it is well planned from the beginning, then there shouldn't be system alterations that screw up your character.

Now the system is easier with a little more free thought. If you get rid of levels all together and replace it with some sort of specialization system, then when your character advances over time they do not become more powerful but they become more suited to the way you want to play them. I played the magic card game once and there's something similar, a deck that was worked on for years can be lost to a novice hand if a person "plays their cards right", but the older deck will have the advantage of being tailored to its owners play style.

Another way one could look at sequels is co-centric circles with the original game at the center. So say, if you imported your character from Geneforge 1 and it was an oppressive shaper, you dealt with what your actions wrought in that game and face the new decisions you have to make. In other words, the world of the sequel would be based on the imported character, where there would be different larger worlds made for larger decisions and then smaller decisions woud have smaller effects across that, so instead of having a linear game you would have a game that expands more in terms of options.

Anyway, I think it could be pretty cool.

 

[DarkSign]

Sarvis is correct in his explaination of subclass. Though thats not the main point, I thought Id weigh in on the easy stuff.

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis is correct in his explaination of subclass. Though thats not the main point, I thought Id weigh in on the easy stuff.

Careful there, agreeing with me might get you a new rank.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Actually the difference between us, and the reason I keep saying you are narrowminded, is that you COULD convince me if you provided any evidence or good reasoning for your position.

I thought I did. If that wasn't sufficient, I'd try to present my position better in this reply. Keep in mind that in this particular thread I'm not trying to prove that my position is correct as the matters discussed are very subjective, just like the definition of RPG is. So, I'm merely explaining my preferences in regard to importing characters. Needles to say, importing is possible, but it's usually done with disregard to choices made in a prev game. Your examples that were meant to prove that it's possible were based on the same disregard (people died anyway, there is a new threat that forces Revan to follow the same path as a Jedi, somebody else moves into the Sand people place, not enough time to show any effects, etc) and only proved that disregarding the choices is the only way.

Whenever someone has posted something showing I was wrong on a point I have relented. For instance when you pointed out that I used "disclude" incorrectly I admitted my mistake. As a contrast, when I pointed out that you used "subclass" incorrectly you posted the definition of the prefix and tried to show that the word meant what you meant rather than what it actually means.

I have no problems admitting that I'm wrong, but in this particular case, the example I gave (human-animal) kinda proves my point that an object could be a sub-class and yet display totally different traits that neither original class nor other sub-classes have and thus become a class of its own. However, if you firmly believe that I used the word incorrectly, then I apologize for misleading.

In the same way you keep saying that it is impossible to carry meaningful choices across games, but have never offered any reasoning whatsoever why this is so. I have offered examples (whether they are bad or not), and said how it could be accomplished from a purely technical standpoint. Essentially the only thing keeping developers with accounting for choices across multiple games is time and money, which are the same things I have held forth prevent it from being done in a single game.

I agree about time and money. That's what I meant by impossible. I've said several times that the only real solution is to design several maps with their own quests per choice made in the prev game. Technically it's possible, practically it's impossible. As an example, let's use the pirate town since we've discussed that to some degree already (see below)

The pirate town isn't a great example for you. All that really changes is the population of the town. If the player drove off the pirates there just aren't any pirates in the town, if they did not the town appears pretty much exactly like it does in the first game.

Not exactly. If the player drove off the pirates, the map should show the town in ruin. Since the player can go there, there should be something there to do, some quests related to the area. If the pirates are there, the map could be the same as in the first game, but with some new characters, new pirate quests, etc. So, we have 2 maps and 2 sets of quests per location. And that's only the pirate town. We also have the Moathouse, the factions, whether or not you killed that church guy (and how that affected Hommlet), etc. In the end it woud be like designing 2 separate games basically. They might as well market them as "evil sequel" and "good sequel".

Also there are many series games where the events aren't really related. The Gold Box games all took pace in completely different areas, without paying any attention to what had gone on before.
...
I'd also say that some choices SHOULD be trivialized. It's a bit more realistic that way.

That's where you return to the established path of how it's usually being handled.

They are not that far removed from each other. Remember that while they are in many ways different they do share certain similar properties, such as stats and skills.

Many games have stats and skills, like Warcraft 3. That doesn't make them RPGs.

The differences between mice and humans are largely on the surface. We are shaped differently, but at a someone more basic level we are very similar.

I'm looking at humans-vs-other-animals from a different angle: tool making, city building, inventions, etc. Similarly when I compare Fallout to MW for example, I see radically different gameplays, not just 2 entertainment computer programs.

You missed the part where we rule the world and populate internet forums. While it's not a biological trait, tools making is what sets us apart in a major way.

Actually apes do use simple tools.

Do they make them?

Haven't played Bloodlines. Err... you are referring to the Vampire the Masquerade game? Because it looks like it would play a lot like BG from the couple of screenshots I've seen...

Must have been *very* early screenshots Here is my "review" of the game: http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 07&start=0

Take away the gauss rifles and power armor and how long is an Enclave soldier going to last? Hitpoints? Well unfortunately there are no hitpoints in real life. If there were marines would probably have quite a lot compared to your average fat lazy American.

Why should we take anything away? Take away a high level DnD mage's spellbook and wands and see how long he will last. And yes, there are no HPs in real life, and that's why I didn't think that your RL examples were appropriate. Games use different rules and concepts and are not realistic by definition. These flawed concepts are responsible for demi-gods and balance problems.

I disagree. What I said in the middle was "... by the time you hit high levels, you've already made all the important choices and defined your character in terms of specific skills, feats, and abilities. All that's left is to polish what you have, improve the existing skills basically". As I explained there, even new skills like Whirlwind or Sniper fall under the "improvement of the existing skills" category.

At which point Iasked you to explain which skill Whirlwind Attack is an improvement of. Your response was to not answer the question and go on about how adding a single skill wasn't character development.

You have NOT made all the important choices for the Whirling Death class at level 15. If you don't take whirlwind Attack at 18 you end up with a much different class.

Like I said, you take it too literally. A new skill could still be seen as merely an improvement of existing combat abilities. Don't forget I'm not talking about right and wrong here, but just explaining how I see things in regard to my definition. I didn;t play HotU, so let's go back to Fallout and Sniper perk. You can similarly argue that you are building a sniper character for whom Sniper perk at lvl20+ is the defining skill, but it's just not interesting enough for me. Focusing on skills to that degree was never my cup of tea. Smells too much like munchkinism to me.

I doubt that is true. List some of the scenarios you think would be impossible to account for and I'll take a crack at it.

A sequel to ToEE reflecting all possible choices would be hard to pull off, imo, without doing the "many, many years later" or "in a place far, far away" thing.

You thought it would be impossible to account for both a Sith Lord and Jedi Hero after KOTOR too, but I'm guessing by your silence on that point that I came up with something acceptable.

It's acceptable, just like KOTOR 2 explanation is "acceptable" I guess (didn't play the game yet). That's the workaround, not the solution to present the choices; but even in your example, there are some questionable areas, like if you are a Jedi hero you'd need to enlist help of the remaining Sith; or if you are the Sith Lord, you'd need to ally with the Jedi and that should be reflected throughout the game. Otherwise, what you've suggested doesn't really account for any of the events, in fact it makes it absolutely irrelevant who you are and were in the prev game.

 

[Sarvis]

I thought I did. If that wasn't sufficient, I'd try to present my position better in this reply.

You hadn't. You keep saying it's impossible without saying _why_ it is impossible. Even now you just switched "impossible" with "prohibitively expensive and time consuming." At which point I ge tto pull out the irony card and point out that this was my argument against doing it in a single game, to which you guys almost unanimously replied that it just means developers are lazy.

Keep in mind that in this particular thread I'm not trying to prove that my position is correct as the matters discussed are very subjective, just like the definition of RPG is.

Think about that for a moment, how can the definition of a genre be subjective? The only real purpose of genre is to give people common language to discuss them with. There is no need at all for your "own" definition of CRPG, because it is essentially useless. No one is going to tell you about some great CRPG using your own personal definition of CRPG. If you allow it to be subjective then there's no reason whatsoever that someone shouldn't refer to Quake as an RPG. (Hell, it seems to meet the qualifications of some people around here!) You guys want an influx of people here to talk about Quake?

So, I'm merely explaining my preferences in regard to importing characters. Needles to say, importing is possible, but it's usually done with disregard to choices made in a prev game. Your examples that were meant to prove that it's possible were based on the same disregard (people died anyway, there is a new threat that forces Revan to follow the same path as a Jedi, somebody else moves into the Sand people place, not enough time to show any effects, etc) and only proved that disregarding the choices is the only way.

How is a new threat disregarding choices? Or even someone else moving into the Sandpeople place? I think you've become confused between accounting for peoples' choices and disregarding them. Disregarding them would be to just put the Sandpeople back, or to start the KOTOR2 off with the Sith Lord not being emporer of the galaxy. (Did I mention that he would get extra resources that way? I definately had that in mind... not sure though...)

I have no problems admitting that I'm wrong, but in this particular case, the example I gave (human-animal) kinda proves my point that an object could be a sub-class and yet display totally different traits that neither original class nor other sub-classes have and thus become a class of its own. However, if you firmly believe that I used the word incorrectly, then I apologize for misleading.

They don't display different traits though until you get down to more specific levels. The whole point of "classing" is the show where traits are shared! In fact, what they share in common is usually something very simple and small. These build up to a more complete picture.

For instance, humans and mice share the same Domain, Kingdom, Phylum and Class. Eukarya, Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia. It is only after that that they differentiate.

I believe Eukarya refers to the kind of cells they have, Animalia means... well, animals, chordata means things with a spinal cord, and mammalia means they breast feed their young. Humans and Mice, and a lot of other animals, share these traits.

Humans and Chimpanzees share even more than that, and only begin to differ at the family level.

The differences you are point out, such as cities and making tools, are in no way actual attributes of an organism. Essentially there are a couple small traits, intelligence and opposable thumbs, which allows us to do those things.

This is also very similar to how you try to classify CRPGs on traits that aren't inherently part of the CRPG...

I agree about time and money. That's what I meant by impossible. I've said several times that the only real solution is to design several maps with their own quests per choice made in the prev game. Technically it's possible, practically it's impossible. As an example, let's use the pirate town since we've discussed that to some degree already (see below)

I remember one of the first discussions I took part in here on Codex. Someone wanted to be able to enter a tower in different ways, and one way was to sneak in through the sewers. To provide that choice the only real solution is to design an extra map with it's own quests.

Not exactly. If the player drove off the pirates, the map should show the town in ruin.

Huh? why? Other people were living there too! Plus since it is a coastal town, with another prosperous town nearby it would probably become a normal merchant port!

Since the player can go there, there should be something there to do, some quests related to the area.

If it DID become ruins there wouldn't be any need for quests! There wouldn't be anyone there to GIVE them...

If the pirates are there, the map could be the same as in the first game, but with some new characters, new pirate quests, etc. So, we have 2 maps and 2 sets of quests per location. And that's only the pirate town. We also have the Moathouse, the factions, whether or not you killed that church guy (and how that affected Hommlet), etc. In the end it woud be like designing 2 separate games basically. They might as well market them as "evil sequel" and "good sequel".

Proper good/evil paths in a single game would be nearly the same thing. For instance many people wanted the option ot join the evil side in NWN, which would mean _maybe_ re-using the second chapter but then you would need seperate stages for invading Neverwinter and doing quests for the evil side!

Also there are many series games where the events aren't really related. The Gold Box games all took pace in completely different areas, without paying any attention to what had gone on before.
...
I'd also say that some choices SHOULD be trivialized. It's a bit more realistic that way.

That's where you return to the established path of how it's usually being handled.

Many games have stats and skills, like Warcraft 3. That doesn't make them RPGs.

Actually from what I remember at the time, many people thought WC3 <i>felt</i> a lot like an RPG because of the whole heroes thing...

Besides, I said "such as stats" not "stats are the only thing that define CRPG."

In other words you need decision making too, and I'm thinking maybe exploration? Well, decision making definately anyway.

I'm looking at humans-vs-other-animals from a different angle: tool making, city building, inventions, etc. Similarly when I compare Fallout to MW for example, I see radically different gameplays, not just 2 entertainment computer programs.

Just becuase things are under a same general category does not mean they would share the same category, any more than being in the same Order means two animals will eat the same foods because they are in the same Order.

It MIGHT go something like this:

Entertainment Computer Program->CRPG->Open->Fallout

or

Entertainment Computer Program->CRPG->Linear->Final Fantasy

or

Entertainment Computer Program-CRPG->Roguelike->ADOM

(Haven't played Morrowind so no idea where to put it!) Also, that's just a couple seconds of thought so the heirarchy could probably be improved.

[
Do they make them?

No idea, but like I said: Give them a couple thousand years.

Why should we take anything away? Take away a high level DnD mage's spellbook and wands and see how long he will last. And yes, there are no HPs in real life, and that's why I didn't think that your RL examples were appropriate. Games use different rules and concepts and are not realistic by definition. These flawed concepts are responsible for demi-gods and balance problems.

Point being that MUCH of their power is coming from specialized weapons, from technology which you attempted to discount a couple responses ago.

Like I said, you take it too literally. A new skill could still be seen as merely an improvement of existing combat abilities. Don't forget I'm not talking about right and wrong here, but just explaining how I see things in regard to my definition. I didn;t play HotU, so let's go back to Fallout and Sniper perk. You can similarly argue that you are building a sniper character for whom Sniper perk at lvl20+ is the defining skill, but it's just not interesting enough for me. Focusing on skills to that degree was never my cup of tea. Smells too much like munchkinism to me.

By your own definition there is no character development whatsoever then. Taking Whirlwind Attack at level 5 is in no way more special than taking it at level 15, nor would any other skill be special depending on what level you took it. Nor is the character in any way "fixed" at any of those levels. The end result of Whirling Death is quite a lot different than any other character build, which can only happen because of development.

A sequel to ToEE reflecting all possible choices would be hard to pull off, imo, without doing the "many, many years later" or "in a place far, far away" thing.

Developers should stop being so lazy!

It's acceptable, just like KOTOR 2 explanation is "acceptable" I guess (didn't play the game yet). That's the workaround, not the solution to present the choices; but even in your example, there are some questionable areas, like if you are a Jedi hero you'd need to enlist help of the remaining Sith; or if you are the Sith Lord, you'd need to ally with the Jedi and that should be reflected throughout the game. Otherwise, what you've suggested doesn't really account for any of the events, in fact it makes it absolutely irrelevant who you are and were in the prev game.

[/quote]

I don't believe I said anything about enlisting help. In fact, if you needed any help as the Sith Lord you'd just call in your military! Plus I don't see how any of this, especially since I went into very little detail, invalidates who the character was in the previous game...

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

And the beat goes on.....
And the beat goes on.....
La de da de dee.....
La de da de di.....

 

[Vault Dweller]

You hadn't. You keep saying it's impossible without saying _why_ it is impossible.

I mentioned many times that it's impossible because it would require to have several different maps and quests per choice which means it's impossible both financially and time-wise. That's the explanation. It's very simple so I don't believe it requires anything else to support it.

At which point I ge tto pull out the irony card and point out that this was my argument against doing it in a single game, to which you guys almost unanimously replied that it just means developers are lazy.

The difference is, as I also mentioned, that in a first game the story is being written and in the second game it's already written. You can decide to wipe out Gecko in FO2, and all you see is dead bodies. In a sequel importing your character and taking place in the same area, you should see the plant being a part of VC and the different attitude and power, or the cooperation between VC and Gecko. That requires totally different maps, quests, dialogues, and should even affect other towns dealing with VC. Btw, if I recall correctly, the fact that you can't save Gecko in FO2 no matter what pissed many people off and made them feel that their decision about Gecko was irrelevant.

Think about that for a moment, how can the definition of a genre be subjective? The only real purpose of genre is to give people common language to discuss them with. There is no need at all for your "own" definition of CRPG, because it is essentially useless. No one is going to tell you about some great CRPG using your own personal definition of CRPG. If you allow it to be subjective then there's no reason whatsoever that someone shouldn't refer to Quake as an RPG. (Hell, it seems to meet the qualifications of some people around here!) You guys want an influx of people here to talk about Quake?

First, as funny as it is there are people who think that there is role-playing in Quake because you are playing the role of that marine. Second, the definition is subjective because different people see different things in game. Some people think that RPG=skills and stats, some think that it's fighting monsters and inventory, some that it's a good story, some feel that a strong story ruins an RPG, etc. It would have been pointless, but here at RPG Codex, we have a community where people mostly share their opinions on RPGs and like similar games. So, when a Codex regular recommends me an RPG, I have an idea of what gameplay elements I should expect.

How is a new threat disregarding choices?

By forcing you to forget the old stuff, the old enemies, and focusing the game on dealing with the new enemies.

I think you've become confused between accounting for peoples' choices and disregarding them.

You did something in the first game, you should see the results, the effects, the consequences. If you don't, for whatever reason, that's disregarding, imo.

...or to start the KOTOR2 off with the Sith Lord not being emporer of the galaxy. (Did I mention that he would get extra resources that way? I definately had that in mind... not sure though...)

No, you didn't. Well, what are extra resources? Color your story a bit. So, by the end of the first game, you are either a savior Jedi with nothing or the Sith Lord commanding a Sith fleet. Suddenly, another race appears. Then what?

They don't display different traits though until you get down to more specific levels. The whole point of "classing" is the show where traits are shared! In fact, what they share in common is usually something very simple and small. These build up to a more complete picture.

Ok, so they share something, but humans are different from any other animals at the same time. It's the only animal that's smart enough (or lazy enough ) to use tools. That alone sets them way beyond any common traits like cells. That tool making difference is huge and that's what defines humans way more than eukaria, chordata, and other crap.

The differences you are point out, such as cities and making tools, are in no way actual attributes of an organism. Essentially there are a couple small traits, intelligence and opposable thumbs, which allows us to do those things.

So, these small traits are the actual attributes of an organism so my point stands.

This is also very similar to how you try to classify CRPGs on traits that aren't inherently part of the CRPG...

Just because something has started differently doesn't mean that we should ignore what it evolved to.

I remember one of the first discussions I took part in here on Codex. Someone wanted to be able to enter a tower in different ways, and one way was to sneak in through the sewers. To provide that choice the only real solution is to design an extra map with it's own quests.

I don't recall that discussion, but first, a sewer in games like Arcanum, Bloodlines, etc would connect many locations, thus it won't be an exclusive extra tower map. Second, even if it's useful for sneaking, a quest could be attached to it, making it's more useful overall. In a second game, one of the maps would be absolutely useless, because these events had never happened.

Huh? why? Other people were living there too! Plus since it is a coastal town, with another prosperous town nearby it would probably become a normal merchant port!

Don't you think it should look a bit different if it becomes a merchant or whatever town? Different quests, different NPCs?

If it DID become ruins there wouldn't be any need for quests! There wouldn't be anyone there to GIVE them...

There is nobody at that field with the hill giant yet there is a quest there.

Proper good/evil paths in a single game would be nearly the same thing. For instance many people wanted the option ot join the evil side in NWN, which would mean _maybe_ re-using the second chapter but then you would need seperate stages for invading Neverwinter and doing quests for the evil side!

Not necessarily. Fallout allows you to play as you want, changing some things here and there depending on your actions.

In other words you need decision making too, and I'm thinking maybe exploration? Well, decision making definately anyway.

Looks like you are slowly drifting toward my definition :wink:

Just becuase things are under a same general category does not mean they would share the same category

That's basically what I said.

It MIGHT go something like this:

Entertainment Computer Program->CRPG->Open->Fallout

or

Entertainment Computer Program->CRPG->Linear->Final Fantasy

or

Entertainment Computer Program-CRPG->Roguelike->ADOM

(Haven't played Morrowind so no idea where to put it!)

Well, you see, MW would also belong in the Open category, so classifying by one or two attributes is pointless and confusing. A better solution would be clasifying by gameplay types, which is what I do.

Point being that MUCH of their power is coming from specialized weapons, from technology which you attempted to discount a couple responses ago.

I didn't discount the technology alone. Demi-godhood is a complex thing that requires many elements. The source of the power is important, which could be a part of a person (DnD monk, Diablo sorc, etc), btw, but the abilities that go with that (HPs, regenration, etc) are important too.

By your own definition there is no character development whatsoever then. Taking Whirlwind Attack at level 5 is in no way more special than taking it at level 15, nor would any other skill be special depending on what level you took it. Nor is the character in any way "fixed" at any of those levels. The end result of Whirling Death is quite a lot different than any other character build, which can only happen because of development.

No, actually it would be important at lvl 5, because that's the early levels where you shape your characters, where every new skill means and makes the difference between life and death, success and failure, define the way you handle obstacles, etc. I'm pretty sure that you character can take care of himself at lvl 20 something when he get the whirlwind. That, again, is a personal preference here, not a rule.

Edit: To clarify my position more. A RL example. A programmer may choose to learn a different language in the middle of his career. This language could be very important, and could redefine his career, but it's not as important as that lousy Visual Basic stuff that he learned after school because that's when he became a programmer.

 

[EvoG]

Wait they're being civil now?! Damn.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

That means the wedding date should be set soon. :D

 

[Volourn]

WOW! I love this thread. A thread full of anality without my involvement.. oops... until now..

Anyways,


"Think of D&D spells like wail of the banshee. Epic level D&D fights are generally a race to see who fumbles their fortitude save first."

Eh..Nah. Wail of the banhsee .. is eaisly stopped with stuff as simple as 4th level spells. Imagine that. Any D&D party not prepared for that needs some help... Unless Mord's is sued.. but, hey, that's why you have back up plans.

Other more rude points..


Anyone who wants to be taken serious should not be bashing BG2 as not being a "RPG"; and try to praise the GB as RPGs eithert. BG2 has more role-playing in one fingernail that it chewed than the entire Gb series combined.

Anyone who bashes Arcanum is not a RPG fan is simply a troll.


That is all. :twisted: For now. Even more :twisted: !

 

[Sarvis]

The difference is, as I also mentioned, that in a first game the story is being written and in the second game it's already written. You can decide to wipe out Gecko in FO2, and all you see is dead bodies. In a sequel importing your character and taking place in the same area, you should see the plant being a part of VC and the different attitude and power, or the cooperation between VC and Gecko. That requires totally different maps, quests, dialogues, and should even affect other towns dealing with VC. Btw, if I recall correctly, the fact that you can't save Gecko in FO2 no matter what pissed many people off and made them feel that their decision about Gecko was irrelevant.

Haven't played the game, so can't really comment...

First, as funny as it is there are people who think that there is role-playing in Quake because you are playing the role of that marine.

Which is why it's silly to use a concept as nebulous as roleplaying in an attempt to define a genre. Which is, in turn, why I tend to say things like "roleplaying is not required in an RPG."

Second, the definition is subjective because different people see different things in game. Some people think that RPG=skills and stats, some think that it's fighting monsters and inventory, some that it's a good story, some feel that a strong story ruins an RPG, etc. It would have been pointless, but here at RPG Codex, we have a community where people mostly share their opinions on RPGs and like similar games. So, when a Codex regular recommends me an RPG, I have an idea of what gameplay elements I should expect.

Yes, that's because you guys ostracise people like me who hold different opinions. You've taken your one subclass of RPG and elevated it's status to define the entire genre, THEN you started forcing other games out by doing things like calling Final Fantasy games Adventure games!

So yeah, in a closed community you've basically just made up your own little language to use and then you boot out or label anyone who has a different definition. It's no better than the FF fanboys on gamefaqs that think FF is everything there is in RPGs.

How is a new threat disregarding choices?

By forcing you to forget the old stuff, the old enemies, and focusing the game on dealing with the new enemies.

You do realize there is no logic there whatsoever right? My new job as an invoicing analyst does not force me to forget the 2 years I spent as a security guard, nor the 6 I spent as a student. Nor will getting a programmer or IT position force me to forget being an invoicing analyst. I may WANT to, but it ain't likely to happen.

The Yuuzhan Vong aren't likely to make Luke forget about his struggles against the Empire either!

There are always new challenges in life, why shouldn't your characters face new challenges too?

You did something in the first game, you should see the results, the effects, the consequences. If you don't, for whatever reason, that's disregarding, imo.

And if you end up ruling the Empire you've seenthe consequences.

No, you didn't. Well, what are extra resources? Color your story a bit. So, by the end of the first game, you are either a savior Jedi with nothing or the Sith Lord commanding a Sith fleet. Suddenly, another race appears. Then what?

I'm not going to design an entire game and plotline just to appease you here. You agreed the scenario was acceptable, and at that point it is the time for game design to make it actually work well.

As a quick thought on the matter though, I might allow the Sith to order air strikes and such while the Jedi hero has to request them from the council and may get refused. Or maybe in planets where there are battles taking place against the Yhuzang Vong you can call in a squadron from another part of the battlefield to help you raid a base or something, while as a jedi you can't because your superiors would never agree to it.

Those are quick ideas, off the top of my head. Not necessarily good ones, but possibilities. You never seem to want to explore possibilities, just make sweeping declarations and leave it at that...

Ok, so they share something, but humans are different from any other animals at the same time. It's the only animal that's smart enough (or lazy enough ) to use tools. That alone sets them way beyond any common traits like cells. That tool making difference is huge and that's what defines humans way more than eukaria, chordata, and other crap.

Not really. Tool making is an expression of the intelligence trait. (Not to mention opposable thumbs!) It isn't a trait in and of itself, in other words.

Just because something has started differently doesn't mean that we should ignore what it evolved to.

I wasn't even talking about past games there. As for evolution, that's what subclasses are for. You're trying to replace the general RPG category with something specific to what you like.

I don't recall that discussion, but first, a sewer in games like Arcanum, Bloodlines, etc would connect many locations, thus it won't be an exclusive extra tower map. Second, even if it's useful for sneaking, a quest could be attached to it, making it's more useful overall. In a second game, one of the maps would be absolutely useless, because these events had never happened.

You're making justifications here. All you're saying is that in certain games, where certain conditions apply you can re-use maps. Well guess what, if you need to re-use a map for a sequel you can simply re-use the existing map. You might need to make another map for specific conditions, such as a town which could have been destroyed, but that's no more work than making a sequel that didn't relate at all to the past.

Don't you think it should look a bit different if it becomes a merchant or whatever town? Different quests, different NPCs?

Look different? No. Not like they would rebuild everything, and there'd still be ships in port. You'd just need to spawn different NPCs.

There is nobody at that field with the hill giant yet there is a quest there.

Damn that hill giant! Anyway, spawning some monsters and a quest item instead of NPCs isn't too hard, and you may be able to use special effects to make a town look worn down or broken up.

Not necessarily. Fallout allows you to play as you want, changing some things here and there depending on your actions.

There's nothing there which only gets used if you make a certain decision? At all? I'd be impressed, and that would take some pretty careful planning... but ok.

Could you destroy a village in Fallout? If so, wouldn't they need a different map for when you went back there? Well, either that or deformable terrain... which defeats your extra map argument anyway since you could then just set off some scripted explosions to ruin the town in the sequel if needed.

In other words you need decision making too, and I'm thinking maybe exploration? Well, decision making definately anyway.

Looks like you are slowly drifting toward my definition :wink:

Imo, an RPG is a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities. For that purpose, a game should obviously have stats and skills that indicate both your character development, and ability to undertake certain tasks.

There's nothing at all about decision making or exploration in your definition.

Just becuase things are under a same general category does not mean they would share the same category

That's basically what I said.

I think I made a typo in there somewhere... I'm not even sure what that was supposed to mean. Maybe that because they are under the same Class doesn't mean they would share the same subclass? That's probably it...

Well, you see, MW would also belong in the Open category, so classifying by one or two attributes is pointless and confusing. A better solution would be clasifying by gameplay types, which is what I do.

You know, your definition isn't that bad. The problem is you have a bunch of "hidden" requirements, such as having multiple paths and meaningful choices.

Anyway, I was trying not to spend hours just making a tree for the games. Frankly, you'd need multiple inheritance and such which just gets messy. The point is that MW, Fallout and Final Fantasy all share some pretty common elements. The category RPG pretty much capture all of those elements, yet you want to take specific traits of games like Fallout and promote them upwards.

In any case, if we were to stick with the tree thing you could just add more specifications like this:

Entertainment Computer Program->CRPG->Open->Complex Interaction->Fallout
Entertainment Computer Program->CRPG->Open->Simple Interaction->Morrowind


You could also put in another level for turn based vs. real time there if you really wanted. Point is that they don't differentiate until after the CRPG->open level right? Even if those small differences can make a huge difference in how the gameplay feels.

I didn't discount the technology alone. Demi-godhood is a complex thing that requires many elements. The source of the power is important, which could be a part of a person (DnD monk, Diablo sorc, etc), btw, but the abilities that go with that (HPs, regenration, etc) are important too.

Actually demi-godhood pretty much just requires that one of your parents was a god...

No, actually it would be important at lvl 5, because that's the early levels where you shape your characters, where every new skill means and makes the difference between life and death, success and failure, define the way you handle obstacles, etc. I'm pretty sure that you character can take care of himself at lvl 20 something when he get the whirlwind. That, again, is a personal preference here, not a rule.

You are defining the shaping of a character by his level, rather than by how and when you actually shape him.

For you development magically stops at a certain level, no matter how much different the character can become after those levels.

Edit: To clarify my position more. A RL example. A programmer may choose to learn a different language in the middle of his career. This language could be very important, and could redefine his career, but it's not as important as that lousy Visual Basic stuff that he learned after school because that's when he became a programmer.

By this logic development stops at level 1, because that's when you choose your class and you will always be that class afterwards. Not to mention that if your programmer gets laid off one day and becomes a construction worker he wasn't done developing was he? He's got a whole new job to learn. Even if he keeps the same job there will be promotions and added responsibility beyond just programming, where he'd have to learn managerial skills and such.

People don't just stop developing at some point, and neither do characters.

Whirling Death doesn't even whirl at level 15, and takes on an entirely new job after level 20 by switching from a bard to a weapons master.

To go to your real life type examples, this would be like Britney quitting being a singer and becoming an Ultimate Fighter.