RPG Design: Importing main characters to sequels

[Vault Dweller]

However all you've proven is that certain past events may have effects on your future, not that every event should lest it become invalid.

That's a fact, that didn't have to be proven. Some events affect future, some don't. An RPG may have a plot that makes past event non-affecting or not. My point was that if you pick a plot affected by past events, it would be impossible to reflect all choices your character could have made. Your solution seemed to be a plot unaffected by past events like the out-of-the-blue invasion.

Similarly, there are people who believe that there is no place for a story in RPGs whatsover. Some people want a scenario, some people want a great story like that in PST or that KOTOR twist. RPG is a tricky genre.

Not according to you. <i>I'm</i> the one claiming the genre is large and expansive with many variations. You are claiming it follows only a strict subset.

Because of the above, I've narrowed it down a bit, but just because I did, doesn't mean I'm not aware of or completely dismiss different opinions.

Then we are back to it not being hard to reflect the character's choices. Or at least no harder than it would be in a single game.

I believe we've already been there. You know my position, I know yours. The end.

I said acceptable as a plot for an RPG, not as a solution to this particular issue.

And of course nothing would be, since you'd have to admit to being wrong.

I would have gladly admitted that I'm wrong if I saw a convincing argument or example.

I wasn't talking about CRPGs. I was specifically thinking about the Legacy of Kain games.

Never played those, so can't comment. Feel free to use examples from them, I'll take your word for it.

Let's say you divide the plot into three games, you then have three budgets, three dev cycles and three times everything else you need to make a game.

That would work, but it seems unlikely that a publisher would be interested in such a scenario, at least for an RPG. A ToEE sequel sounds like a no-brainer, considering that ToEE did ok, and the engine, rules, etc are ready, and most bugs have been already dealt with. Yet, there is nothing on the horizon.

And yet everything in that group would be markedly different in all ways except tool usage.

That's why I said "intelligence" and "psychology".

Though the idea is similar to the one I proposed about having a prefix for games...

A prefix would work too

You become a fighter or thief or whatever at level 1. You may be a crappy fighter or mage or thief, but you still are one.

Technically, yes. Practically, you are everyone's bitch (except for rats, household pets, and other lvl1 losers)

You are just magically defining away development to suit your own purposes. You find early levels more interesting, and that's fine. However development is occuring as long as there are options a character can take. All options, at ALL LEVELS make the character more powerful. Make him "more of a fighter" in your terms.

That's how I see it, and since I don't force anyone to accept it as the only correct definition, I don't see what exactly we are arguing about. I said something, you asked me why, I explained, and that's where the story ends. I separate char development (commonly accepted term) into two phases for my own amusement, you don't. What's the big deal?

No, just discounting my opinions, labeling me a `dumbfuck and other things.

Had I discounted your opinion, I would have not argued with you. I haven't labeled you either. It's not my thing.

Whatever you say. A linear story-driven game sounds a lot like an adventure game to me though.

Actually I don't remember there being a very strong story in Kings Quest. It's pretty much all about puzzle solving, which is of course what the Adventure genre is all about. See how confusing you can make things when you just randomly make up labels?

I said story-driven, not "a very strong story". And as for the puzzles, there is a reason why we have 2 separate genres: adventure and puzzles, you know.

If you told an Adventure game fan to get a Final Fantasy style game because it was a popular Adventure title he'd probably come back and kick your ass, since FF wouldn't be anything like he expected.

I said *like* an adventure game. For a guy who takes things literally, you sure like to twist words and assume stuff

Both. Designing something pretty much gives you ownership over it, unless you signed the IP rights away to someone else.

I'd say that "both" fits my position, but for the sake of an argument: you said that my character means "my ownership over it", so, when I play as, say, Revan in KOTOR, does it mean that I own this character? I wonder what Lucas Arts has to say about that...

Even if you do require the ability to make your own character, the concept of a thief is not required. You could have just a bunch of classes that have varied combat abilities.

Sure. Like Silent Storm. A thief was just an example. Such a character wouldn't fit into battlefields, but a character with sneaking and silent killing abilities would - a Scout.

When you have a thief you tend to run around stealing equipment from enemies, which is very much playing the character in a manner fitting his skills and abilities.

It's a manner that fits a pre-gen character, not yours. Similarly you can argue that you are playing that marine in Quake in a manner fitting his skills and abilities since he's so handy at staying alive and killing things. Now, your character in System Shock 2 for example, who's basically in the same situation, actually has skills and abilities that fit the character. Unlike Quake's marine the SS2 guy must deal with locked doors, security systems, computers, maintaining weapons, and even research of whatever the hell is attacking him. While the skillset is neither complete nor perfect, it's enough to allow you to play in manner fitting your character

Nope, as DeusEx shows you are only pointing where you want the bullet to go. If the character were bad at aiming the bullet might go somewhere else that is close to where you meant.

First, in Quake, which is what we were discussing before, the marine always shoots where I point the gun. If my accuracy is good, then he's good. Second, in Deus Ex, player's accuracy still plays a major role. The character skills reduce recoil (I think) and increase damage. I don;t recall for sure, but I remember that I didn't have any problems using a sniper rifle with no or minimum rifle skill at the beginning. The same goes for the pistol. Even in Bloodlines were they tried to do some fancy aiming stuff, the biggest skill effects were damage and SMG recoil reduction. The aiming was up to you.

 

[Sarvis]

That's a fact, that didn't have to be proven. Some events affect future, some don't. An RPG may have a plot that makes past event non-affecting or not. My point was that if you pick a plot affected by past events, it would be impossible to reflect all choices your character could have made. Your solution seemed to be a plot unaffected by past events like the out-of-the-blue invasion.

Ok, the invasion happens no matter what. However, your past choices DO have an effect on your resources for dealing with this invasion. Either you control everything, and can order troops in ahead of you to soften things up a little or you are ordered by someone else to go in and have no help at all.

You're only problem at that point is whether a Sith Lord Emporer would do his own fighting. Well, let's assume that he would for whatever reason. Maybe he just wants to, or he doesn't think any of his underlings can do the job properly, or maybe 5 stormtroopers die for every Vong they kill or something.

I can even imagine a scenario where you start off the game giving orders to invade bases and such as the Sith Lord, then the next day results are reported to you and basically everyone, including any underling Sith you sent out, got their ass kicked. Only real option then is for you to step up and show why you're the emporer!

Because of the above, I've narrowed it down a bit, but just because I did, doesn't mean I'm not aware of or completely dismiss different opinions.

Instead you just label people `Dumbfuck!!! if they happen to have those differing opinions... right?

I believe we've already been there. You know my position, I know yours. The end.

Yours is wrong though...

Never played those, so can't comment. Feel free to use examples from them, I'll take your word for it.

How about the Metal Gear games? Same basic idea, large over-reaching plot told in important subplots. I don't feel like explaining the entire plotline of both series really...

Plus they aren't CRPGs and don't offer any choices at all, though you do have multiple options for dealing with challenges in Metal Gear games. I was just making the point that just because a game doesn't blurt out the entire storyline at once does not mean it has to feel incomplete. Or even if they do these series are both quite popular in spite of that.

That would work, but it seems unlikely that a publisher would be interested in such a scenario, at least for an RPG. A ToEE sequel sounds like a no-brainer, considering that ToEE did ok, and the engine, rules, etc are ready, and most bugs have been already dealt with. Yet, there is nothing on the horizon.

*sigh* Don't remind me.

Anyways I'd just like to remind you that you said this: "I would have gladly admitted that I'm wrong if I saw a convincing argument or example. "

As for publisher interest, there is a series on PS2 called .Hack, in which the entire plotline is broken up into 4 shorter games. In fact, I just noticed you can even import your character from game to game. I haven't played them, so don't know about choices and such... but the idea itself is there and proves publishers would do this.

That's why I said "intelligence" and "psychology".

So anything that thinks like a human is a human? Such a grouping seems largely useless, unless you are trying to prove your point by using a terrible analogy.

A prefix would work too

I suggested one a while back... I guess no one liked it...

Technically, yes. Practically, you are everyone's bitch (except for rats, household pets, and other lvl1 losers)

And at level 10 you're everyon's bitch, except for some of the things lower than level 9. At level 20 you are STILL the bitch of everything 20+.

That's how I see it, and since I don't force anyone to accept it as the only correct definition, I don't see what exactly we are arguing about. I said something, you asked me why, I explained, and that's where the story ends. I separate char development (commonly accepted term) into two phases for my own amusement, you don't. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that you are trying to use your concept of char development as an argument to convince me that character importation is a bad idea. See how communication can break down when people insist on using their own personal definitions? Try having a discussion about racism with a white person who thinks they've been a victim of it because of THEIR own personal definition.

Had I discounted your opinion, I would have not argued with you. I haven't labeled you either. It's not my thing.

You have brought my title up at the start of every discussion we've had so far. That's not labeling? I didn't even NOTICE the illiterate tag until you made reference to it...

I said story-driven, not "a very strong story". And as for the puzzles, there is a reason why we have 2 separate genres: adventure and puzzles, you know.

I wouldn't exactly call Kings Quest story driven either. My memory could be foggy, but I don't remember the story being more complex than the story for Contra or any other old game really. Hell Action Adventure games like Legend of Zelda are basically "Princess was kidnapped, go rescue her!" Final Fantasy seems pretty story driven by comparison, where every time you finish off some event another piece of storyline drives you into the next event.

Or do you have your own little definition of "story driven" too?

I said *like* an adventure game. For a guy who takes things literally, you sure like to twist words and assume stuff

No, you said it *sounds like* an adventure game. The usual connotation of a statement like that is that you are saying it's so similar to an adventure game it doesn't make a difference.

I'd say that "both" fits my position, but for the sake of an argument: you said that my character means "my ownership over it", so, when I play as, say, Revan in KOTOR, does it mean that I own this character? I wonder what Lucas Arts has to say about that...

Look, <a href="http://www.onelook.com/?w=your&ls=a">"your"</a> is nothing but the possesive form of "you." There is nothing in it that implies creation.

As for LucasArts, I believe they own <i>the rights to the character</i>, not the character itself.

Creation doesn't necessarily give you ownership either, just ask RA Salvatore who created Drizzt do'Urden... a character "owned" by WoTC.

Sure. Like Silent Storm. A thief was just an example. Such a character wouldn't fit into battlefields, but a character with sneaking and silent killing abilities would - a Scout.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is no need at all for sneaking skills. Nothing in your definition requires it. If there is no sneaking skill included there is no need for sneaking related solutions to challenges.

Look at Diablo II. There are no classes which have any reason whatsoever to be sneaky, are there? So how could you fault the game for not having stealthy quest solutions?

It's a manner that fits a pre-gen character, not yours.

Actually you choose to make the character a thief, then choose all the skills he trains in... that's not exactly pre-generated. Oh, and again "yours" does not in any way connotate creation or even customization. Did you build <i>your</i> computer? <i>Your</i> car? <i>Your</i> house? I guess those aren't yours because they were pregenerated?

Similarly you can argue that you are playing that marine in Quake in a manner fitting his skills and abilities since he's so handy at staying alive and killing things. Now, your character in System Shock 2 for example, who's basically in the same situation, actually has skills and abilities that fit the character. Unlike Quake's marine the SS2 guy must deal with locked doors, security systems, computers, maintaining weapons, and even research of whatever the hell is attacking him. While the skillset is neither complete nor perfect, it's enough to allow you to play in manner fitting your character

But nothing in your definition requires character creation, picklock, weapon maintenance, computer or hacking skills. Or does all that logically derive from "ability?"

Note also that you just said it was ok to have an incomplete skillset, at what point exactly does it become complete? For instance if SS2 were set in the past the only skill still necessary would be lockpicking, right? So would a gmae with JUST a lockpick skill and combat skills have a "complete enough" skillset? If so then why is lockpicking so important?

First, in Quake, which is what we were discussing before, the marine always shoots where I point the gun.

Yes, the Quake Marine has enough firearms skill to shoot exactly where you intended. The DeusEx guy does not have that much skill to start. Not to mention you are using the Quake Marines running and jumping ability, his ability to keep fighting after taking 20 shots in the face, and his ability to know how to reload a BFG.

If my accuracy is good, then he's good. Second, in Deus Ex, player's accuracy still plays a major role. The character skills reduce recoil (I think) and increase damage. I don;t recall for sure, but I remember that I didn't have any problems using a sniper rifle with no or minimum rifle skill at the beginning.

I vaguely remember from the demo that when you are aiming the crosshair moves around slightly or something, and that the higher the characters skill the less it moves around.

The same goes for the pistol. Even in Bloodlines were they tried to do some fancy aiming stuff, the biggest skill effects were damage and SMG recoil reduction. The aiming was up to you.

Essentially you are deciding where the bullet should go, and relying on the marine's skill to get it there. Right?

(This is why I needed time to think about the decision making aspect of my definition...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ok, the invasion happens no matter what. However, your past choices DO have an effect on your resources for dealing with this invasion. Either you control everything, and can order troops in ahead of you to soften things up a little or you are ordered by someone else to go in and have no help at all.

I don't think that matters too much. It works well in RTS (some Starcraft scenarios had that), but in RPGs the level of support is less relevant.

You're only problem at that point is whether a Sith Lord Emporer would do his own fighting. Well, let's assume that he would for whatever reason. Maybe he just wants to, or he doesn't think any of his underlings can do the job properly
...

I can even imagine a scenario where you start off the game giving orders to invade bases and such as the Sith Lord, then the next day results are reported to you and basically everyone, including any underling Sith you sent out, got their ass kicked. Only real option then is for you to step up and show why you're the emporer!

Sounds kinda lame, imo. There was a Sith Academy in KOTOR. If you know that you are Revan you can state that, and although you can and would have an option to kill them all, and they can sense your Force powahz, they treat you as a student instead of bowing to you. That was kinda lame too. Render unto Caesar ....

That would work, but it seems unlikely that a publisher would be interested in such a scenario, at least for an RPG. A ToEE sequel sounds like a no-brainer, considering that ToEE did ok, and the engine, rules, etc are ready, and most bugs have been already dealt with. Yet, there is nothing on the horizon.

*sigh* Don't remind me.
Anyways I'd just like to remind you that you said this: "I would have gladly admitted that I'm wrong if I saw a convincing argument or example. "

I'm still looking for it. :wink: I'd also like to remind you that I've never said that it's physically impossible. I explained what it would take to make it, and why publishers won't do it (hence, impossible). The above goes into the same category.

As for publisher interest, there is a series on PS2...

For some reasons, ps2 and pc are two different beasts in publishers' minds.

So anything that thinks like a human is a human? Such a grouping seems largely useless, unless you are trying to prove your point by using a terrible analogy.

Weren't we talking about classes and subclasses? Assuming that we aren't alone in the universe, humans could be a subclass of intelligent species or overly destructive species or species that look smart but are actually stupid, etc.

Technically, yes. Practically, you are everyone's bitch (except for rats, household pets, and other lvl1 losers)

And at level 10 you're everyon's bitch, except for some of the things lower than level 9. At level 20 you are STILL the bitch of everything 20+.

That's not how I see. At lvl10 in DnD you have feats/spells that give you a fighting chance against higher level or multiple opponents. Lvl1s don't have that.

The big deal is that you are trying to use your concept of char development as an argument to convince me that character importation is a bad idea. See how communication can break down when people insist on using their own personal definitions?

I'm not trying to convince you, I posted my OPINION in this thread, and you assumed that it was a personal challenge to you. It wasn't. Now I'm merely explaining my opinion to you. You see things differently. Good for you. The end.

You have brought my title up at the start of every discussion we've had so far. That's not labeling? I didn't even NOTICE the illiterate tag until you made reference to it...

No, that's not labeling, that's a joke, but fine, I apologize, that was uncalled for. Happy?

Sure. Like Silent Storm. A thief was just an example. Such a character wouldn't fit into battlefields, but a character with sneaking and silent killing abilities would - a Scout.

...

Look at Diablo II. There are no classes which have any reason whatsoever to be sneaky, are there? So how could you fault the game for not having stealthy quest solutions?

Just read what I wrote above. The key word is FIT.

Actually you choose to make the character a thief, then choose all the skills he trains in... that's not exactly pre-generated. Oh, and again "yours" does not in any way connotate creation or even customization. Did you build <i>your</i> computer? <i>Your</i> car? <i>Your</i> house? I guess those aren't yours because they were pregenerated?

Arguing about these things sounds like fun, good old-fashioned anal-retentive fun. Sadly, I don't have the time. Suffice to say that I told you what I meant, and NOW you know.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is no need at all for sneaking skills. Nothing in your definition requires it. If there is no sneaking skill included there is no need for sneaking related solutions to challenges.
...

But nothing in your definition requires character creation, picklock, weapon maintenance, computer or hacking skills. Or does all that logically derive from "ability?"

From "manner fitting your character". My character. I get to make a character, and play in a manner that fits it. The Quake's marine - not mine character. A Fallout character that I develop - mine. Any questions?

Note also that you just said it was ok to have an incomplete skillset, at what point exactly does it become complete? For instance if SS2 were set in the past the only skill still necessary would be lockpicking, right? So would a gmae with JUST a lockpick skill and combat skills have a "complete enough" skillset? If so then why is lockpicking so important?

When does it become complete? When there are enough skills to make a unique character that fits into a game setting. If SS2 were set in the past, I'd assume there would be different situations and challenges that would require different skills to handle them. Depends on a game.

Yes, the Quake Marine has enough firearms skill to shoot exactly where you intended. The DeusEx guy does not have that much skill to start. Not to mention you are using the Quake Marines running and jumping ability, his ability to keep fighting after taking 20 shots in the face, and his ability to know how to reload a BFG.

I disagree. I shoot, I jump, I run, I dodge. Jumping depends only on my timing and button pressing coordination. Shooting depends on my reaction, my ability to aim quickly and precisely, while dodging, strafing, or running backwards. Etc.

I vaguely remember from the demo that when you are aiming the crosshair moves around slightly or something, and that the higher the characters skill the less it moves around.

Didn't affect things much, at least for me. Takes some getting used to, and then you are fine. It couldn't be compared to Fallout for example, where you start with 40-50% in Small Guns and trying to kill something is a waste of a perfectly good bullet.

Essentially you are deciding where the bullet should go, and relying on the marine's skill to get it there. Right?

Considering that the marine never misses, essentially it's just me deciding where the bullet should go, period. Also, it's not much of a decision. I see a monster, I must shoot it, otherwise it's the game over screen. Not much of a choice, if you ask me.

 

[EvoG]

Shit I forgot about this

/me sits back with popcorn

 

[Sarvis]

I don't think that matters too much. It works well in RTS (some Starcraft scenarios had that), but in RPGs the level of support is less relevant.

It could be, but not necessarily. Maybe while the storm troopers go in ahead they blow holes in walls and such, and open up new areas or items.

Also, you could go through old areas too if you wanted where people might remember you and help/hinder you based on past treatment.

Sounds kinda lame, imo. There was a Sith Academy in KOTOR. If you know that you are Revan you can state that, and although you can and would have an option to kill them all, and they can sense your Force powahz, they treat you as a student instead of bowing to you. That was kinda lame too. Render unto Caesar ....

I don't see how that's the same thing...

I'm still looking for it. :wink: I'd also like to remind you that I've never said that it's physically impossible. I explained what it would take to make it, and why publishers won't do it (hence, impossible). The above goes into the same category.

Umm... you said, specifically, that "that would work." Meaning, in other words, that your original objection that it would be too costly to produce is now dealt with. You've switched to a _different_ defense of your claim. A new defense to which I already disproved!

For some reasons, ps2 and pc are two different beasts in publishers' minds.

Consoles and PCs won't be considered different beasts for long if MS has anything to say about it!

Also Bioware may have thrown a little wrinkle into that by selling their own Premium modules without a publisher! Not to mention that those premium modules are episodic in nature, and there is certainly the potential for choices to be carried over between modules. I'm fairly certain Bartel is planning on that for the Witch's Wake series considering he has made mention of using the DB features to track things you do in the first module!


So not only are games which import characters and account for choices possible, they are being made right now!

Weren't we talking about classes and subclasses?

Honestly I'm not even sure at this point. Let's drop this part of the discussion, shall we?

That's not how I see. At lvl10 in DnD you have feats/spells that give you a fighting chance against higher level or multiple opponents. Lvl1s don't have that.

Yeah, and to borrow your earlier analogy, when you are learning a brand new programming language you have more languages/choices to deal with projects than you did when first learning VB. Yet YOU still claim that that first VB program made him a programmer.

Besides, a dragon can probably still take out a level 10 character practically instantly, and a part in short order. Not to mention that level 1 chars, using good teamwork and tactics, do have a chance against more powerful or multiple opponents.

I'm not trying to convince you, I posted my OPINION in this thread, and you assumed that it was a personal challenge to you. It wasn't. Now I'm merely explaining my opinion to you. You see things differently. Good for you. The end.

I didn't assume it was a personal challenge, I just knew you were wrong.

Of course, you'd have to be a very odd person to spend 5 pages simply explaining yourself. People usually only spend that many posts on something when they are arguing. If you just wanted to state your opinion you only needed the first post!

No, that's not labeling, that's a joke, but fine, I apologize, that was uncalled for. Happy?

Not really. I'm still a `dumbfuck!!!.

Just read what I wrote above. The key word is FIT.

Please don't tell me you're still missing the point...

I'll try to simplify:

You claim there should be multiple options to deal with an event.
In order to have multiple options you need skills which take advantage of those options.
If you don't have those skills in the first place, everything else is moot.
Nothing in your definition requires those skills.

A game with only a Warrior class and Magic-User class, in which either class could take varied skills and specialize into different types of fighting or magic would fit your definition perfectly... yet would never require any kind of non-combat options or paths.

Therefore you cannot logically infer a multiple paths/options requirement from your original definition.

Arguing about these things sounds like fun, good old-fashioned anal-retentive fun. Sadly, I don't have the time. Suffice to say that I told you what I meant, and NOW you know.

Fine with me. Your definition still doesn't say what you mean.

From "manner fitting your character". My character. I get to make a character, and play in a manner that fits it. The Quake's marine - not mine character. A Fallout character that I develop - mine. Any questions?

Yes, where exactly in these definitions of "my" and "mine" do you see anything about development:

my
  ? possessive determiner 1 belonging to or associated with the speaker. 2 used in various expressions of surprise.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=my&ls=a

mine1

  ? possessive pronoun referring to a thing or things belonging to or associated with the speaker.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=mine&ls=a

(I used the Compact Oxford English dictionary from those links.)

No, I'm not trying to just be anal here either. You are just putting forth a definition that is wholly insufficient for your own purposes. You could make it work with like a four word addition:

An RPG is a game that allows you to create a character and play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities.

Of course, it still doesn't require multiple paths or solutions as I explained a bit earlier.

When does it become complete? When there are enough skills to make a unique character that fits into a game setting. If SS2 were set in the past, I'd assume there would be different situations and challenges that would require different skills to handle them. Depends on a game.

Define "unique." I mean, do you mean if you play through a certain number of times that you could create four different characters? Or do you mean the ability to create a character wholly unlike any character ever likely to be used by another person?

I disagree. I shoot, I jump, I run, I dodge. Jumping depends only on my timing and button pressing coordination. Shooting depends on my reaction, my ability to aim quickly and precisely, while dodging, strafing, or running backwards. Etc.

Jumping depends on your timing? Really, so if you time it right you can jump twice as high as normal? If you time it wrong you only jump half as high? You don't think the game would play any differently if they'd used an "out of shape" marine who could only run half the speed? Do you really KNOW how to reload a BFG?

Didn't affect things much, at least for me. Takes some getting used to, and then you are fine. It couldn't be compared to Fallout for example, where you start with 40-50% in Small Guns and trying to kill something is a waste of a perfectly good bullet.

That just means the DeusEx dude was more skilled than the Fallout guy. Damn... had a better response than that last night, but didn't want to do this drunk.

Oh! Got it... In fallout you choose where the bullet goes and the character fails to get it there because of his low skill. In Quake you choose where the bullet goes, and it gets there. The Quake guy is just the Fallout guy with 100% in all guns.

Considering that the marine never misses, essentially it's just me deciding where the bullet should go, period. Also, it's not much of a decision. I see a monster, I must shoot it, otherwise it's the game over screen. Not much of a choice, if you ask me.

Oh good, then I can put decision making back in my definition. My original intention with that was that it meant deciding what to do in combat, for instance cast a spell or attack and which creature. But as long as doing essentially the same thing in an action game doesn't count I think it works.