What makes an Elmunchkin?
Stephen Mackey
spotlight off the players and their pcs. This was based on experience in P&P,
play by e-mail, and similar forms of roleplaying, where the DM is never really
meant to have a permanent npc in the party. Rather, most of his work is
supposed to be in the background... the subtle plots of the villians, the
fleshing out of the world's history, geography, and economics, and so on. I
have seen one attempt of a DM attempting to play a pc along with all the other
players while simultaneously coordinating the campaign as a whole, and believe
you me, it did not turn out pretty. Every attempt of this in pulp fiction that
I have seen has also come out badly. Elminster, Drizzt, and whatnot.
But the Baldur's Gate games really are a different breed. In fact, you could
argue that it's not really D&D, simply because it breaks the unbreakable
division between the DM "side" and the players' "side" by having recruitable
npcs who the player partially controls.
And here, in the design of these npcs, or as I like to call them, rnpcs (the
"r" stands for "recruitable", to differentiate them from the regular npcs), we
have two basic choices.
We can paint them as larger than life, cool dramatic dudes and dudettes with
angst and heroism and all the stuff that makes people drool over comic books.
This can result in a Drizzt or a (to use a more controversial example for the
lesser extremity of it) Solaufein situation, where the player becomes resentful
of an npc who is scripted to become powerful and c00l, while his own carefully
crafted and visualized pc relies on hoping the designers remember to throw the
Bhaalspawn a bone.
On the other hand, they can also be done in traditional Baldur's Gate style.
This results in them being... well, boring. :) They don't overshadow the pc,
but neither do they have much emotional impact. Certainly nothing on a level
with Chrono Trigger's rnpcs, for example. Would anyone kill the frog knight
just to get an extra slot for their party, as people sometimes do with rnpc
"pairs" in Baldur's Gate 1? I personally think not.
So, being interested in rnpc designing myself, here is my dilemma and here is
my query.
How to make an rnpc interesting enough and emotionally involving in his own
right without making the player resentful of what is essentially inalterable,
prescripted events he has nothing to do with and can affect in only a very
limited fashion compared to a "real" roleplaying game. Where do you draw the
line? How much power is too much, how much drama is too much? And by reverse,
how much is too little? How may one straddle the line between the two extremes
and thus achieve the virtues of both while avoiding their flaws?
Opinions, anyone?
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"There is no sig. There is only Zuul."
Rassadihn
news:20030228011143...@mb-fl.aol.com...
<snip>
> We can paint them as larger than life, cool dramatic dudes and dudettes
with
> angst and heroism and all the stuff that makes people drool over comic
> books. This can result in a Drizzt or a (to use a more controversial
example
> for the lesser extremity of it) Solaufein situation, where the player
> becomes resentful of an npc who is scripted to become powerful and c00l,
> while his own carefully crafted and visualized pc relies on hoping the
> designers remember to throw the Bhaalspawn a bone.
Said player should get a life. (No personal offense is intended if said
player can be identified with the author, by the way. :-) I counter this
with tho basic arguments.
1. The "you have the power over the game" argument. As a game owner and mod
installer, you have considerable influence over what happens in the game. If
an NPC annoys you -- if *anything* annoys you -- the means are there to
change it. If you start resenting Sola OOC because of the way he was
written, *then don't install him.* Or, if you're more savvy, change the
rules and reprogram his mod.
2. The "you have the power in the game" argument. Your characters
"c00lness", or lack thereof, is your own doing. You get to fill in your own
stats (technically die rolls are still involved, but the last time I played
a P&P game, infinite rerolls weren't part of the house rules). There's a
massive buttload of magical items to outfit your intrepid protagonist with
(claiming that NPCs can get them as well is a non-argument, because *you*
get to distribute all the equipment).
> On the other hand, they can also be done in traditional Baldur's Gate
style.
> This results in them being... well, boring. :) They don't overshadow the
> pc, but neither do they have much emotional impact. Certainly nothing on
a
> level with Chrono Trigger's rnpcs, for example. Would anyone kill the
frog
> knight just to get an extra slot for their party, as people sometimes do
> with rnpc "pairs" in Baldur's Gate 1? I personally think not.
I don't necessarily agree with the statement that they have no emotional
impact, certainly not in BG 2. But even if I did, that still wouldn't make
killing off NPCs for slots good roleplaying, and blaming the game for
inspiring people to go off on such tangents hardly seems very fair.
Criticism of the depth of the NPCs in BG is one thing; using the behavior of
power players as evidence of it is another. There is not now and will never
be a computer-based RPG that will not allow you to completely mess up
roleplaying in some way (ignoring the degenerate case of a "game" that
railroads you *everywhere*).
For the record, I would never consider killing off NPCs, no matter how
emotionally uninvolving they were. It's the difference between a role-player
and a mere player, IMO.
> So, being interested in rnpc designing myself, here is my dilemma and here
> is my query.
> How to make an rnpc interesting enough and emotionally involving in his
own
> right without making the player resentful of what is essentially
> inalterable, prescripted events he has nothing to do with and can affect
in
> only a very limited fashion compared to a "real" roleplaying game.
You talk about "the player" as if there only were one model of player to
accommodate for, but unfortunately it's not that easy.
Some people are resented by absolutely every attempt of the game to take
control away from the player, no matter how slight. Such people cannot
roleplay for obvious reasons; they should seriously consider a real-time
strategy game instead, or something even less complicated.
Then there's the opposite extreme of players who will accept anything the
game throws at them, no matter how off-the-wall or unjustified it seems. In
a sense, this is the ultimate roleplaying, because a *character* would be
unable to "step out of the system" and say: "OK, this is too much -- I drop
my sword and take the plane to Timbuktu". Not many people can adopt this
point of view and maintain it all the way, though.
Most of us (disclaimer: gratuitous generalization used strictly for
stylistic purposes :-) are somewhere inbetween. We will act as our
characters, more or less, and accept situations as they occur, up to a
point, reacting in a fashion we think is consistent with our character's
character (pardon the expression). As long as the in-game hardships don't
get too extreme, the story doesn't get too boring and the atmosphere is
maintained, we're happy.
> Where do you draw the line? How much power is too much, how much drama is
> too much? And by reverse, how much is too little? How may one straddle
the
> line between the two extremes and thus achieve the virtues of both while
> avoiding their flaws?
> Opinions, anyone?
De gustibus non est disputandum. Things like grammar, spelling, structuring,
even (up to a point) stylistic conventions are all subject to more-or-less
objective criticism. Content is not. You cannot maintain writing that is
"acceptable" for people whose notion of "acceptable" you don't understand,
so don't even try. Write it as *you* would like to see it. Accept input from
others, yes -- but just to mull over, not to fill in gaps in your own
opinion (if any). In the end, you'd get so sick with "your" story that the
rest of the world would have been better off if you hadn't written it in the
first place.
Questions that start of with "How may one..." hide the fact that the "one"
is "you". A great number of people are always waiting for an opportunity to
answer such questions by reciting their own point of view, but for heaven's
sake, don't let those spoil your own. If you don't yet know how to say it,
then just wait until you do. Let thinking about how things ought to *be*
lead to how they should be *done*. My personal advice. YMMV. Warranty void
in Timbuktu. (Sorry, Timbuktuians.)
R.
Stephen Mackey
>Said player should get a life. (No personal offense is intended if said
>player can be identified with the author, by the way. :-) I counter this
>with tho basic arguments.
Oh, I'm sure. Go on, I'm listening.
>1. The "you have the power over the game" argument. As a game owner and mod
>installer, you have considerable influence over what happens in the game. If
>an NPC annoys you -- if *anything* annoys you -- the means are there to
>change it. If you start resenting Sola OOC because of the way he was
>written, *then don't install him.* Or, if you're more savvy, change the
>rules and reprogram his mod.
What about Elminster and Drizzt, though? I DID say Solaufein was a more minor
example. True, they're not recruitable, but they might as well be, the way
they keep popping into the plot to be all mysteriously helpful and whatsit
without ever really deigning to act as equals to you.
>
>2. The "you have the power in the game" argument. Your characters
>"c00lness", or lack thereof, is your own doing. You get to fill in your own
>stats (technically die rolls are still involved, but the last time I played
>a P&P game, infinite rerolls weren't part of the house rules). There's a
>massive buttload of magical items to outfit your intrepid protagonist with
>(claiming that NPCs can get them as well is a non-argument, because *you*
>get to distribute all the equipment).
Your power in the game is incredibly narrow and strictly limited to what the
designers want to give you, unless you want to open up the options by designing
more yourself, which is hardly a fair option for the general public.
Again, Drizzt, for instance, has unique magical items you will never find the
like of in BG1, for instance. And you don't get to choose your own dialogue,
nor how most scripted events play out. You can't even follow Elminster and bug
him for more straightforward answers when he decides to leave you. He just
goes and that's it.
What if my character's never heard of him?
Like it or not, there IS widespread resentment towards characters percieved as
attempts by the DM to steal the spotlight. You can, if you like, attribute it
all to such people not having lives, which probably goes without saying for D&D
fans (hah), but something sufficiently common would seem to have something else
at the base.
>I don't necessarily agree with the statement that they have no emotional
>impact, certainly not in BG 2.
In 1, none. In 2, more, but still not nearly as much as in the average console
rpg. Take Yoshimo, for instance. How much dialogue does he get really BONDING
with the pc before he goes all Geas-y?
>But even if I did, that still wouldn't make
>killing off NPCs for slots good roleplaying, and blaming the game for
>inspiring people to go off on such tangents hardly seems very fair.
If it weren't emotionally viable to some extent, they wouldn't be doing it, for
the most part. There will always be a few who just don't give a damn, but when
it's widespread there's presumably something wrong with the system.
>You talk about "the player" as if there only were one model of player to
>accommodate for, but unfortunately it's not that easy.
This is true. Ultimately my personal preferences will come into play, but
until that time let us assume I mean to please the widest possible audience,
within reason.
>
>Then there's the opposite extreme of players who will accept anything the
>game throws at them, no matter how off-the-wall or unjustified it seems.
:nudges Kish::
>Things like grammar, spelling, structuring,
>even (up to a point) stylistic conventions are all subject to more-or-less
>objective criticism. Content is not.
I disagree. To a certain extent, at least.
>Questions that start of with "How may one..." hide the fact that the "one"
>is "you".
Was I trying to hide it? Please, if I was attempting subterfuge I would have
been more subtle about it. ;)
>A great number of people are always waiting for an opportunity to
>answer such questions by reciting their own point of view, but for heaven's
>sake, don't let those spoil your own.
Come now. If nothing else, by now you've surely noticed that I tend to have
very strong points of view. ;P Have a little faith. The original post was all
about avoiding extremities, remember? I wish neither to abandon my own already
held beliefs, nor ignore those of others. I want to temper mine with others'.
Simple enough, yes?
I don't want to be Westley, either. I don't want to create solely for myself,
holding steadfast to my own beliefs while not considering that perhaps those of
others may have something to 'em as well (sorry, Wes... would it help if I said
I was exaggerating for the sake of dramatic effect? ~_^).
T.J....@durham.ac.uk
>> We can paint them as larger than life, cool dramatic dudes and dudettes
> with
>> angst and heroism and all the stuff that makes people drool over comic
>> books. This can result in a Drizzt or a (to use a more controversial
> example
>> for the lesser extremity of it) Solaufein situation, where the player
>> becomes resentful of an npc who is scripted to become powerful and c00l,
>> while his own carefully crafted and visualized pc relies on hoping the
>> designers remember to throw the Bhaalspawn a bone.
> Said player should get a life. (No personal offense is intended if said
> player can be identified with the author, by the way. :-) I counter this
> with tho basic arguments.
I'd suggest a third:
3) You play as a party as much as you play as an individual. For every n
that resents Solaufein because he can do things the protagonist can't
there are m (such that m > n) that think playing a party of which he's a
constituent member is great...
Tom
--
She lowered her standards by raising her glass,
her courage, her eyes and his hopes.
-Flanders and Swann
Kish
> On the other hand, they can also be done in traditional Baldur's Gate style.
> This results in them being... well, boring. :) They don't overshadow the pc,
> but neither do they have much emotional impact. Certainly nothing on a level
> with Chrono Trigger's rnpcs, for example. Would anyone kill the frog knight
> just to get an extra slot for their party, as people sometimes do with rnpc
> "pairs" in Baldur's Gate 1? I personally think not.
I disagree. I would venture that everyone who cares little enough about
the game to kill half an NPC pair would mow the frog knight down without
a second thought--or a first one, for that matter--and look funny at you
when you suggested this wasn't the obvious, logical thing to do.
> So, being interested in rnpc designing myself, here is my dilemma and here is
> my query.
> How to make an rnpc interesting enough and emotionally involving in his own
> right without making the player resentful of what is essentially inalterable,
> prescripted events he has nothing to do with and can affect in only a very
> limited fashion compared to a "real" roleplaying game. Where do you draw the
> line? How much power is too much, how much drama is too much? And by reverse,
> how much is too little? How may one straddle the line between the two extremes
> and thus achieve the virtues of both while avoiding their flaws?
> Opinions, anyone?
To some extent, you're trying to do something that can't be done. You
can't please everyone. You're also asking subjective questions as if
they were objective. "Too much power and drama" depends entirely on the
player.
Rassadihn
> Rassadihn said:
>
> >Said player should get a life. (No personal offense is intended if said
> >player can be identified with the author, by the way. :-) I counter this
> >with tho basic arguments.
>
> Oh, I'm sure. Go on, I'm listening.
>
> >1. The "you have the power over the game" argument. As a game owner and
mod
> >installer, you have considerable influence over what happens in the game.
If
> >an NPC annoys you -- if *anything* annoys you -- the means are there to
> >change it. If you start resenting Sola OOC because of the way he was
> >written, *then don't install him.* Or, if you're more savvy, change the
> >rules and reprogram his mod.
>
> What about Elminster and Drizzt, though? I DID say Solaufein was a more
minor
> example. True, they're not recruitable, but they might as well be, the
way
> they keep popping into the plot to be all mysteriously helpful and whatsit
> without ever really deigning to act as equals to you.
>
played. And even if it did, the DM gleefully accepted criticism when you
offered it, right? I bet everybody agreed that such things were not to be
part of a mature roleplaying session, and you played happily ever after.
OK, I'm toning down the irony now. I'm not saying I don't *agree* with your
objection personally (more on that below). I'm not even saying that everyone
who isn't gushing over the Forgotten Realms doesn't agree with it. It *is*
generally perceived as stupid, pointless and annoying. Which is why it's a
bad way of opening a discussion, but a great way of opening a round of "I
agree, Drizzt/Elminster is not the way to go" cheers.
As an aside, I think it's a stretch to relate this annoying habit with the
way you see Sola's happenings as transcending your own sleek self. What do
you want? The ability to make annoying cameos yourself? SM: "Hey Sarevok,
just thought I dropped by the inform you that we're DROPPING THE HAMMER ON
YOU, MAN! That's right, I'm *thiiiis* close to unraveling your master plan!
How'd you like them apples?! (Dimension Doors out)" If you've got a handle
on just how small and idiotic that would be, you're a bit closer to
shrugging it off when silly characters do it.
> >2. The "you have the power in the game" argument. Your characters
> >"c00lness", or lack thereof, is your own doing. You get to fill in your
own
> >stats (technically die rolls are still involved, but the last time I
played
> >a P&P game, infinite rerolls weren't part of the house rules). There's a
> >massive buttload of magical items to outfit your intrepid protagonist
with
> >(claiming that NPCs can get them as well is a non-argument, because *you*
> >get to distribute all the equipment).
>
> Your power in the game is incredibly narrow and strictly limited to what
the
> designers want to give you, unless you want to open up the options by
designing
> more yourself, which is hardly a fair option for the general public.
Chess is a game for two played on an 8x8 grid of black and white squares.
Each player gets 16 pieces of a fixed configuration, to be placed in
predetermined starting positions, after which they can only be moved in
accordance with an intricate set of rules... You see what I'm getting at, I
trust. Your objection applies to *all* games. Without rules (read:
restrictions) there is no game.
I know, I know: RPGs are special because they're all about giving you the
freedom to act as an imagined character, which is a far cry from pushing
pieces around on a board. None but the most naive of chess players would
complain that a pawn can't move backwards, while RPG players balk at a whole
host of impossible actions that seem perfectly reasonable to them. In fact,
I'm working on a little mod *right now* to correct what I feel to be an
oversight in the available roleplaying options in BG 2! So where are you
coming from, and where am I coming from?
Let's read on before we answer that.
> Again, Drizzt, for instance, has unique magical items you will never find
the
> like of in BG1, for instance. And you don't get to choose your own
dialogue,
> nor how most scripted events play out. You can't even follow Elminster
and bug
> him for more straightforward answers when he decides to leave you. He
just
> goes and that's it.
> What if my character's never heard of him?
I'm reading this and parsing it as:
More freedom!
This is the perennial cry of CRPG players, and there isn't a single one
among them who would argue that they've never, ever, in any circumstances,
wished they had received it. I've certainly been among the wanting.
The problem, of course, is that there is no way to consistently draw the
line. Just exactly how much freedom should you have, as a player? Absolute
freedom? Forget it; even if we could implement it ("fiat lux!"), there
wouldn't be a game left. No freedom? Obviously not, for the same reason. So
somewhere inbetween, then? Yes, but how do we define that position? And if
we do, aren't we opening things up to yet another ballot round for the
freedom fighters?
Take the dialogue you mention: "you don't get to choose your own dialogue".
You don't get to do it in a P&P game, either. Oh sure, you're playing with
humans, which gives you rather a huge advantage as far as expressive power
is concerned. But you're still restricted to the rules of the RP system
itself and to the implicit and untangible but still very present
restrictions on roleplaying. And *of course* you are -- you wouldn't be
enjoying more freedom if you weren't, you'd be outside of the game
altogether!
You want to have your cake and it eat too: you want a game that can be
captured in what we currently know of computer programming (which, I'm sorry
to say, isn't a whole lot as far as the relationship to our own mental
abilities is concerned) *and* you want a game that corresponds to what you
feel to be a "free" game, a "fair" game, an enjoyable game you could have
with P&P buddies. Sorry, but it's just not going to happen, especially when
you're the author: you're going to see the seams where the whole thing is
suspended from reality, and they're going to piss you off. All the glowing
praise in the world is just sugar-coating for that.
> Like it or not, there IS widespread resentment towards characters
percieved as
> attempts by the DM to steal the spotlight. You can, if you like,
attribute it
> all to such people not having lives, which probably goes without saying
for D&D
> fans (hah), but something sufficiently common would seem to have something
else
> at the base.
>
What do you want? Fifteen minutes of fame as a house rule? A "Guaranteed to
be More Impressive than any In-Game Entity" sticker on your character sheet?
There are two issues at play here. First there's the "I'm just going to step
up, insert gratuitous nonsense into the game and disappear because the DM
wants to show me off" baloney that we all love to hate. No argument there.
This is ego gratification on the DM's behalf of the basest, most banal sort,
focusing on something "neato" instead of the story overall.
Second, there's the desire for ego gratification that especially RPG players
have. It's only natural -- you wouldn't be pretending to be sir Foozlum the
Great, or even Wimpling the Insidious, if you didn't want people to admire
the acting performance, or the amazing equipment you've amassed, or the
(not-so-)heroic feats you've achieved -- take your pick. If everybody was
ignoring you, you'd leave the game in ten seconds flat. In this sense,
anyone who isn't in some way, directly or indirectly, interacting with
*your* character (stress "interacting", not "delivering a monologue") has no
business wasting *your* valuable time, regardless of how relevant they are
to the story.
I'm guessing that you mentioned Solaufein because you feel that he is at
least in part "unfair" or "unappealing" out of ego gratification on Wes'
behalf. To which extent many arguments can be made for or against, but this
would needlessly distract us from the bigger picture, I think; let's just
leave everyone to their own opinion on that.
(Apologies for taking things and running with them; I'm having trouble
keeping the topics separated. We'll get there in a few more posts, I'm sure.
:-)
> >I don't necessarily agree with the statement that they have no emotional
> >impact, certainly not in BG 2.
>
> In 1, none. In 2, more, but still not nearly as much as in the average
console
> rpg. Take Yoshimo, for instance. How much dialogue does he get really
BONDING
> with the pc before he goes all Geas-y?
>
Do you want me to count the lines? :-) But on a more serious note -- *just
how much dialogue is needed*? Do you really think there's an answer to such
a question? Exactly how much should Yoshimo "bond" with the player anyway?
Just enough for him to be mourned over? Just enough to be viewed as not just
another thief? Just enough to be viewed as a person? And knowing the "right"
amount of bonding, how do we go about implementing it to appease "the
majority"? Issue regular polls to find the hot spot, fine-tuning him to be
just appealing enough to just enough people? Personally, I find such a
utilitarian view appalling, and I cannot for the life of me see any way of
doing this but to trust your own instincts, misguided as others may think
they are. Other people's opinions may hone those instincts for future work,
yes -- but how can you ask opinions on something you haven't even done yet?
> >But even if I did, that still wouldn't make
> >killing off NPCs for slots good roleplaying, and blaming the game for
> >inspiring people to go off on such tangents hardly seems very fair.
>
> If it weren't emotionally viable to some extent, they wouldn't be doing
it, for
> the most part. There will always be a few who just don't give a damn, but
when
> it's widespread there's presumably something wrong with the system.
>
Ah, but then you shift the burden of proof on yourself to show that this
practice is indeed widespread, which of course involves gathering numbers on
how many people play the game... But on a more serious note, I think such
claims are hard to support because they again rely on what, exactly,
"enough" emotional involvement is, and for what player. I disagree with the
idea "the system" as defined in BG 1 is *wrong*, for example, even though I
agree with your claim that the characters would be more appealing if they
were more emotionally involving. We're both wishy-washy, but on different
fronts. :-)
> >You talk about "the player" as if there only were one model of player to
> >accommodate for, but unfortunately it's not that easy.
>
> This is true. Ultimately my personal preferences will come into play, but
> until that time let us assume I mean to please the widest possible
audience,
> within reason.
>
Pleasing the audience is what gives you a deluge of commercial trash. That
there is occasionally something worthwhile to fish out is *in spite of*, not
*because of* the authors giving their audience "what it wants".
Oh, I know (how do I love this phrase? Let me count the ways...): as an
author, you want to be "heard", and your chances of getting heard increase
with the number of people who like what you do. Well, I'm going to put it
bluntly: wanting to get noticed is a crappy reason for doing anything, even
as a partial motivation.
Why am I arguing with you? Because I want you to notice me? No. Because I
want my *arguments* to be noticed? Yes, but only because I feel they
contribute to a more complete and hence better understanding of the issues
involved. If I write anything (whether it's a Usenet post or a mod) I'm
doing so because *I like doing it*. I don't give a horse's ass about how
many people enjoy it, or think it's horrible, or notice it at all. A
creative act is its own reward. But I'm shutting myself up now, before I
start to sound paradoxically self-righteous in this respect... Oops, too
late. :-)
<snip>
> >Things like grammar, spelling, structuring,
> >even (up to a point) stylistic conventions are all subject to
more-or-less
> >objective criticism. Content is not.
>
> I disagree. To a certain extent, at least.
>
Well, then, this is where we would agree to disagree were it not for the
fact that... Erm, let's just skip to the end of that. Mortal enemies, blah
blah, "my chicken kung fu is stronger than your lizard kung fu", land war in
Asia, this town ain't big enough for the both of us.
> >Questions that start of with "How may one..." hide the fact that the
"one"
> >is "you".
>
> Was I trying to hide it? Please, if I was attempting subterfuge I would
have
> been more subtle about it. ;)
>
Well, using one pronoun when you mean another is pretty subterfugal. (I'm
sure that's not in the dictionary, but it's elegant enough.) Why don't you
ask "How should *I* etcetera etcetera?" Isn't that what you mean? Is there
something to be gained by inviting people to think about you as a "generic
someone"? (The answer is yes, by the way, and I'm not contradicting my own
point with that -- so consider it carefully.)
> >A great number of people are always waiting for an opportunity to
> >answer such questions by reciting their own point of view, but for
heaven's
> >sake, don't let those spoil your own.
>
> Come now. If nothing else, by now you've surely noticed that I tend to
have
> very strong points of view. ;P Have a little faith. The original post
was all
> about avoiding extremities, remember? I wish neither to abandon my own
already
> held beliefs, nor ignore those of others. I want to temper mine with
others'.
> Simple enough, yes?
Sure. But what made you feel they needed tempering in the first place? I
don't just have a little faith, I have *boundless* faith in your opinions
and abilities -- until you demonstrate that such faith is unwarranted, of
course, at which point I'll tone it down a little. In fact, you've slipped
from the boundless mark already by virtue of opening your mouth, and you
could hardly help that. :-)
Do you really want pointers on how you, whom I don't know personally (well,
to a large extent) should go about writing an NPC I know nothing about?
Well, I've only got one then: persist. :-)
> I don't want to be Westley, either. I don't want to create solely for
myself,
> holding steadfast to my own beliefs while not considering that perhaps
those of
> others may have something to 'em as well (sorry, Wes... would it help if I
said
> I was exaggerating for the sake of dramatic effect? ~_^).
>
I don't want to be Westley, either, so it's probably inappropriate for me to
respond to this -- but then again, this is Usenet, so I can say any foolish
thing without being recorded for all eternity... errr... Anyway, if you like
exaggerations for dramatic effect, here's another one: people's opinions are
only worth something if they're about something you already made, not about
something you are possibly going to make after hearing them.
What else can Westley do but hold to his own beliefs? Is someone else going
to do it for him? (On some weird meta-level, I might be doing just that for
all I know -- but let's not go into that). I think it doesn't do him justice
to suggest that he considers the beliefs of others worthless, or ignorable.
In fact, I think it's exactly the opposite -- he's rejecting them only after
the utmost scrutiny (or with somewhat less scrutiny if it's the 1,024th time
he's presented with a particular one, of course, but that applies to all of
us). If you could make the case that Westley Weimer has never, ever in his
life heeded anyone's opinion on what he did, then I'd agree. But I know from
personal experience that this is not the case.
If you can never say "I disagree with you and that's the end of that" but
always have to say "since you're so convinced of this I simply have to keep
it in mind" what's left of your artistic integrity? (Please look beyond the
cornyness of the phrase.) I'm not advocating the role of the dogmatic
iconoclast, but I am advocating the right to reject someone else's opinion
totally after you believe you have fully understood it -- *regardless of how
important the other party thinks it is*.
Incidentally, I'm getting a bit passionate in the debate, I've noticed. I
hope I haven't stepped over the fine borders into annoyance or
offensiveness; neither was intended, I assure you. The Mackey knife was left
firmly in its display case. :-)
R.
Jason Compton
: So, being interested in rnpc designing myself, here is my dilemma and here is
: my query.
: How to make an rnpc interesting enough and emotionally involving in his own
: right without making the player resentful of what is essentially inalterable,
: prescripted events he has nothing to do with and can affect in only a very
: limited fashion compared to a "real" roleplaying game. Where do you draw the
: line? How much power is too much, how much drama is too much? And by reverse,
: how much is too little? How may one straddle the line between the two extremes
: and thus achieve the virtues of both while avoiding their flaws?
: Opinions, anyone?
I think that what YOU are saying is that you want an RNPC to have a story
99% as cool as the PC's story. Now, that implies that for the RNPC's story
to be cool, the PC's story must also be cool... and in my mind at least,
the BG2 PC story is not all that terribly cool.
If you want to talk about designing a game from the ground up, then I'd
say you have to start with a PC story that's super-cool... but that's
problematic to do unless you make it very linear. NPC stories can usually
be cooler because they can be linear.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
jeffo
>Until very recently, my gaming philosophy was that nothing should take the
>spotlight off the players and their pcs. This was based on experience in P&P,
>play by e-mail, and similar forms of roleplaying, where the DM is never really
>meant to have a permanent npc in the party. Rather, most of his work is
>supposed to be in the background... the subtle plots of the villians, the
>fleshing out of the world's history, geography, and economics, and so on. I
>have seen one attempt of a DM attempting to play a pc along with all the other
>players while simultaneously coordinating the campaign as a whole, and believe
>you me, it did not turn out pretty. Every attempt of this in pulp fiction that
>I have seen has also come out badly. Elminster, Drizzt, and whatnot.
>But the Baldur's Gate games really are a different breed. In fact, you could
>argue that it's not really D&D, simply because it breaks the unbreakable
>division between the DM "side" and the players' "side" by having recruitable
>npcs who the player partially controls.
In the best D&D games I've played, the players and DM work together to
create a story complete with world creation, character development,
plot development, and emotional investment all around. Any "division"
can only be that the players are more responsible for characters and
the DM more responsible for...everything else. NPCs may be introduced
for many reasons. A crucial plot point perhaps or maybe mere
entertainment. Control of the NPC? Players and DM both exert control
like most everything in the game. NPC says take the path through the
mountain, Players say over the mountain. Over they go. Well the DM
can certainly choose if the NPC will accompany them, but accompany or
not, the Players in part controlled the NPC's decision. I think you
make a false assumption that there are two sides that are separate.
>And here, in the design of these npcs, or as I like to call them, rnpcs (the
>"r" stands for "recruitable", to differentiate them from the regular npcs), we
>have two basic choices.
>We can paint them as larger than life, cool dramatic dudes and dudettes with
>angst and heroism and all the stuff that makes people drool over comic books.
>This can result in a Drizzt or a (to use a more controversial example for the
>lesser extremity of it) Solaufein situation, where the player becomes resentful
>of an npc who is scripted to become powerful and c00l, while his own carefully
>crafted and visualized pc relies on hoping the designers remember to throw the
>Bhaalspawn a bone.
Heh, well perhaps that says more about you than the game. I don't
drool over Drizzit. I've never even killed him to see his equipment
much less resented him for his supposed coolness. Same for Sola. He
added to the plot, to character development, to the game. I just
don't have the same ego problem you describe.
>On the other hand, they can also be done in traditional Baldur's Gate style.
>This results in them being... well, boring. :) They don't overshadow the pc,
>but neither do they have much emotional impact. Certainly nothing on a level
>with Chrono Trigger's rnpcs, for example. Would anyone kill the frog knight
>just to get an extra slot for their party, as people sometimes do with rnpc
>"pairs" in Baldur's Gate 1? I personally think not.
>So, being interested in rnpc designing myself, here is my dilemma and here is
>my query.
>How to make an rnpc interesting enough and emotionally involving in his own
>right without making the player resentful of what is essentially inalterable,
>prescripted events he has nothing to do with and can affect in only a very
>limited fashion compared to a "real" roleplaying game.
Isn't this a fact of life and not just roleplaying? Some times when I
watch a hawk riding air currents I wish I could fly. I could be
resentful, but I'm not. Sometimes I wish I was a performing musician
instead of a living room guitar hack. I just don't have the drive to
become more accomplished and perhaps I don't have the talent no matter
how hard I try. I don't regret not trying harder; I don't resent my
allotment of talent. How is Elminster's appearance and lack of
interaction with the PC much different? In "real" life a person could
certainly warn you that your life is in danger but refuse to speak
more on that or any other subject, get in his car and drive away
forever. I'm not sure this is a shortcoming of the game design.
>Where do you draw the
>line? How much power is too much, how much drama is too much? And by reverse,
>how much is too little? How may one straddle the line between the two extremes
>and thus achieve the virtues of both while avoiding their flaws?
>Opinions, anyone?
It's tough. You make a decision and move on to the next thing. You
may hate where you draw the line but draw it anyway. You might love
it, but the next guy hate it. You may regret it. You may change it
several times over time.
Thanks
jeffo
Stephen Mackey
>Take the dialogue you mention: "you don't get to choose your own dialogue".
>You don't get to do it in a P&P game, either.
Actually, yes, you do. Now you're just being silly in an attempt to make your
point. Which is unnecessary, because you made your point before getting into
this ridiculous claim. ;)
>Oh sure, you're playing with
>humans, which gives you rather a huge advantage as far as expressive power
>is concerned. But you're still restricted to the rules of the RP system
>itself and to the implicit and untangible but still very present
>restrictions on roleplaying.
You're confused, or possibly just using the opportunity to stand on a soapbox
and make a point that has little overall relevance. I'm talking about
restrictions on actions that are already possible within the rules of the game.
You're talking about the rules themselves.
Dude, get off your soapbox. You're talking to a writer... no one else knows
better than someone who's finished a novel that perfection is impossible. But
it should always be aimed for. Much as it is impossible to be a perfect human
being, but you should always TRY, every day.
>There are two issues at play here.
*snip*
Okay, this is getting more relevant.
>Do you want me to count the lines? :-) But on a more serious note -- *just
>how much dialogue is needed*?
Cheap Answer: More. ;)
> Issue regular polls to find the hot spot, fine-tuning him to be
>just appealing enough to just enough people? Personally, I find such a
>utilitarian view appalling, and I cannot for the life of me see any way of
>doing this but to trust your own instincts, misguided as others may think
>they are.
Now we're getting into OpinionLand, which is, btw, what I wanted in the first
place. ;) Regardless of whether or not I agree with what you think, I wanted
to HEAR it, and take it into account with my own beliefs.
>Other people's opinions may hone those instincts for future work,
>yes -- but how can you ask opinions on something you haven't even done yet?
Since it concerns the basic nuts and bolts of writing, I sure can. ;) Any
writer worth his salt has an opinion on this sort of issue. The details, the
details are for later, along with the fine tweaking. There's a difference
between "playtesting" and "radically altering the basic design." Ya gotta get
the design down first, 'cause altering it later is hell.
>Ah, but then you shift the burden of proof on yourself to show that this
>practice is indeed widespread, which of course involves gathering numbers on
>how many people play the game...
Would you like me to make an online poll?
::amused look::
>I disagree with the
>idea "the system" as defined in BG 1 is *wrong*, for example, even though I
>agree with your claim that the characters would be more appealing if they
>were more emotionally involving.
So what you're saying is, you agree that there's a problem, you just don't
think it's as severe as I do.
>Pleasing the audience is what gives you a deluge of commercial trash.
And ignoring the audience is what gives you Plan 9 From Outer Space.
>Oh, I know (how do I love this phrase? Let me count the ways...): as an
>author, you want to be "heard", and your chances of getting heard increase
>with the number of people who like what you do. Well, I'm going to put it
>bluntly: wanting to get noticed is a crappy reason for doing anything, even
>as a partial motivation.
Actually, you're wrong. And being rather rude and condescending about it too,
I might add.
Of course I want to be noticed. Hell, everyone wants to be noticed to some
extent or other. But that is not my motivation for creating anything. My
motivation for creating is the innate joy I get out of it. That's all. If
being noticed isn't part of my motivation, then why am I creating for others as
well as myself, and not SOLELY myself? Because I recognize that if you
creating only for yourself, you become blind to the flaws inherent in your own
point of view. You must balance your view with the views of others to achieve
the artistically best possible result.
>Why am I arguing with you?
Okay, now you're venturing off into LaLa land again, man..... ;) Try to keep
those tangents under control before they grow too big and start eating kittens,
for Frith's sake.
>If I write anything (whether it's a Usenet post or a mod) I'm
>doing so because *I like doing it*.
And of course, you make the entirely unwise assumption that because I want to
take other people's opinions into account, being noticed is automatically part
of my motivation.
Hah.
Sorry, that crow don't caw.
>Why don't you
>ask "How should *I* etcetera etcetera?" Isn't that what you mean?
Because I was going for a flow there, and it sounded prettier that way. ;P
You're overanalyzing again, poppet. A flaw I have great sympathy with, by the
by. ;)
>In fact, you've slipped
>from the boundless mark already by virtue of opening your mouth, and you
>could hardly help that. :-)
I'm repressing the urge to set you afire right now. ;P
>but then again, this is Usenet, so I can say any foolish
>thing without being recorded for all eternity...
Bets?
::smirk::
>What else can Westley do but hold to his own beliefs?
Take into account what other people believe? This is how people's beliefs
change, after all. Or, more usually, get tweaked. And, even if you disagree
with it all anyway, there's never any harm in learning about other people's
opinions.
>I think it doesn't do him justice
>to suggest that he considers the beliefs of others worthless, or ignorable.
I agree, I was exaggerating unfairly. At least I didn't go rolling off into
completely wild tangents though. Nyah, nyah.
>If you can never say "I disagree with you and that's the end of that" but
>always have to say "since you're so convinced of this I simply have to keep
>it in mind" what's left of your artistic integrity?
You're arguing against extremities again, which is what I already told you I'm
trying to AVOID.
Yer preachin' to the choir.
> The Mackey knife was left
>firmly in its display case. :-)
Don't worry, I'm not offended by any of the points you wanted to make. Mildly
annoyed by your grabbing at tangents and running with them, but no more so than
if you woke me up with a country song in the morning. ;)
Stephen Mackey
>I disagree. I would venture that everyone who cares little enough about
>the game to kill half an NPC pair would mow the frog knight down without
>a second thought--or a first one, for that matter--and look funny at you
>when you suggested this wasn't the obvious, logical thing to do.
I can disprove that with myself as the example, conveniently enough.
::grin::
I killed off Khalid once in BG1, and Jaheira once. And regularly let Xzar and
Montaron be ogre fodder. Yet, I wouldn't kill off a character from Chrono
Trigger. Nor would I kill off a character from BG2, incidentally (with the
possible exception of Vomit Vomitson).
>To some extent, you're trying to do something that can't be done. You
>can't please everyone.
I know that, but it's always nice to have high goals to shoot for. Aim for
heaven and you get earth as well, aim for earth and you get neither, and all
that.
>You're also asking subjective questions as if
>they were objective. "Too much power and drama" depends entirely on the
>player.
I do think a rough line could be established with majority opinion, though.
Stephen Mackey
>I think that what YOU are saying is that you want an RNPC to have a story
>99% as cool as the PC's story. Now, that implies that for the RNPC's story
>to be cool, the PC's story must also be cool... and in my mind at least,
>the BG2 PC story is not all that terribly cool.
Hmm. Maybe, then, the problem isn't with the rnpcs so much as it is with how
the pc's story interacts with them....
::ponder::
Kish
> Kish said:
>
>
>>I disagree. I would venture that everyone who cares little enough about
>>the game to kill half an NPC pair would mow the frog knight down without
>>a second thought--or a first one, for that matter--and look funny at you
>>when you suggested this wasn't the obvious, logical thing to do.
>
>
> I can disprove that with myself as the example, conveniently enough.
> ::grin::
"Anyone who /cares little enough about the game/." You're only a valid
example if you cared as little about Chrono Trigger as you did about BG1.
>>You're also asking subjective questions as if
>>they were objective. "Too much power and drama" depends entirely on the
>>player.
>
>
> I do think a rough line could be established with majority opinion, though.
On the off chance that you want my opinion...
Disclaimer: Everything in the following paragraph is my opinion, nothing
more.
I think levels of power and drama matter only slightly. What does
matter to me is how well the character fits into the established game.
The level of power and drama is relevant only insofar as it affects
that. Solaufein's power level and that of his opponents is mildly
jarring, but ultimately, in my mind, much less of a problem than the
fact that he lacks voicing. Both Kelsey and Solaufein--and even Tashia,
whom I despise for other reasons--have another problem: their quests are
entirely about them, unlike, say, Aerie's desire to help Raelis, which
affects everyone from the people of the Five Flagon's playhouse to
Mekrath and another party-joinable, or Valygar's quest to explore the
extremely large and conspicuous sphere which is having an impact on
people all over the city, or Korgan's quest which is the only way the
Pimlico Estate is ever involved in the game, or even Mazzy's miniquest
which involves Surly and results in the permanent removal of a character
who will stand around outside the Copper Coronet all game if you don't
have Mazzy.
A compelling reason to stay with the group is important to me, too.
Korgan and Edwin have it: Loot. Viconia has it: You're the only person
she can trust. Aerie has it: You rescued her from Kalah's illusions,
and what she wants to do is explore the world anyway. Valygar has it:
You helped him with the Planar Sphere, and what he wants to do is
explore the world anyway. Solaufein has it: You helped him is Ust
Natha, and he needs help to familiarize himself with the surface world.
Kelsey /doesn't/ have it: He owes you nothing and he shows little
interest in exploring or adventuring. (This could easily be a problem
with my perceptions--what came through to me was that Aerie was torn
between her fear of the surface world and her desire to explore, and
Valygar really wanted to explore, and Kelsey just wanted to settle down
and be a successful merchant.)
Gebhard Blucher
[snips]
> Kelsey /doesn't/ have it: He owes you nothing and he shows little
> interest in exploring or adventuring.
Kelsey's in it to pick up chicks.
GB
Stephen Mackey
>Kelsey's in it to pick up chicks.
Well, he DOES look a little like a rock star, IMHO.... :)
Stephen Mackey
>On the off chance that you want my opinion...
When don't I? ;)
>I think levels of power and drama matter only slightly. What does
>matter to me is how well the character fits into the established game.
*snippity*
Thanks... it really hadn't occurred to me to think about this area of npc
design. Your comments have proved... helpful. :)
Cynthia Crise
> Gebhard Blucher said:
>
> >Kelsey's in it to pick up chicks.
>
> Well, he DOES look a little like a rock star, IMHO.... :)
>
What picture are you using and where can I get it? Gavin Rossdale he is
*not*! Maybe if the rock star is Rivers Cuomo, then I could see it. :)
Cyn
Westley Weimer
> Rassadihn said:
> What about Elminster and Drizzt, though? ... True, they're not
> recruitable, but they might as well be, the way they keep popping into
> the plot to be all mysteriously helpful
I'm afraid that I have to side with the peanut gallery here and suggest
that this is in fact a normal an accepted ploy in fantasy. Drizzt makes two
appearances over the course of two massive games. If you want to argue that
Gandalf in LoTR should be a party member because he spends half of the
adventure with (some subset of) the party, fine. I'm with you. But Drizzt
in BG2 is more like Tom Bombadil. Sure, here's there. He's helpful. But
he's clearly a secondary cameo. Much like the high priest who gives Damien
the Fire in the Coldfire Trilogy or Bargus in Escaflowne or Hiko Seijuro in
Kenshin or ...
Example Cute Chart:
Series Major "Party-Member-Esque" Character Minor Bit-Part
--- --- ---
Baldur's Gate Sarevok Drizzt
Cold Fire Ciani High Priest Guy
Escaflowne Folken Bargus
Kenshin Saitou Hajime Hiko Seijuro
Paksenarrion Kieri Phelan rest of world ...
...
> Your power in the game is incredibly narrow
"I guess one of the advantages of being the son of a god is that you are
the only one on the planet that can open or close doors. It's an
awesome power, really."
-- Hosun S. Lee, alt.games.baldurs-gate
More generally, you are the only one in the game with human intelligence
and power word: reload. But wait, you cry: those are outside-of-the-game
considerations. Very true! But at the end of the game, you won. If you
assume the reloads never happened and that it was just one sweeping
continuation, you are forced to conclude that your characters were either
amazingly smart tactically or very lucky. Smells like Divine Power to me.
:-)
> and strictly limited to what the designers want to give you,
Are we in the same game? BG2 has how many kits, how many races, how many
optional items and spells? This game is seriously non-linear and "strictly
limited" is not a phrase I usually apply to it.
> Again, Drizzt, for instance, has unique magical items you will never find
> the like of in BG1, for instance.
<CHARNAME> has unique magical items that Drizzt can only dream about. I
don't know about you, but I'd rather have Ages or Fury than Frostbrand. How
about the Cloak of Cheese? Ring of Gaxx? Heck, why do we get Montolio's
Cloak instead of the D-Man?
But wait, you cry, I was talking about BG1! Perhaps you were, but that's
the beginning of the story. In the first few chapters of most fantasy books
the characters are almost always outclassed by the things around them.
If they start out superior it is hard to see them grow and change. Tad
William's _Memory, Sorry and Thorn_ is an excellent example here. _Deed of
Paks_, yada yada.
> And you don't get to choose your own dialogue,
Endemic to CRPGs, sadly.
> What if my character's never heard of him?
:-) I appreciate your point. However, in this particular example, not
having heard of Elmary Sue in FR is kinda like not having heard of Jesus,
Buddha or Mohammed here in the present. Sure, it's possible. But it's more
likely that his name came up once or twice while you were studying at
Candlekeep.
> Take Yoshimo, for instance. How much dialogue does he get really
> BONDING with the pc before he goes all Geas-y?
More than Cernd!
Seriously, Yoshi has some great lines with Renal and a bunch of NPCs.
There's a reason that there is perennial interest in finding some way to
keep Yoshimo alive and make mods that add post-death content for him. And
it's not because of his haircut. "I could dance on the head of the plot if
you like."
>> Things like grammar, spelling, structuring, even (up to a point)
>> stylistic conventions are all subject to more-or-less objective
>> criticism. Content is not.
> I disagree. To a certain extent, at least.
Here I agree. The content can be (and has been) the subject of formal
criticism. Spelling is given as a supposedly objective example, but even it
only makes sense within a particular system (e.g., american english,
british english, esperanto). The plot can be examined using similar formal
systems (e.g., the hero's quest, archetypes, ...) as can other issues
(e.g., their treatment of "romance").
For some fun reads on similar topics, check out:
http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html
http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/oct02/geeksquad_1002.shtml
> I don't want to be Westley, either.
Some of the advantages are nice but the allergies aren't worth it. :-)
> I don't want to create solely for myself,
I guess this isn't the time to recommend _Atlast Shrugged_ to you ... :-)
> holding steadfast to my own beliefs while not considering that perhaps
> those of others may have something to 'em as well (sorry, Wes... would
> it help if I said I was exaggerating for the sake of dramatic effect?
> ~_^).
:-) Sure, I don't mind either way. For the benefit of the studio audience,
however, it is worth pointing out that there are numerous documented
instances of Wes sacrificing his creative vision for the benefit of the
community (you have only to read the Sola, Tactics and Valen changelogs for
a plethora of features and changes I despised but implemented anyway). Just
because I examined something someone suggested and, in the final analysis,
found it wanting ... does not mean that I never examine such things or
that I have never discover that I have been mistaken.
- wes
Stephen Mackey
>But Drizzt
>in BG2 is more like Tom Bombadil.
::grin::
You know the popular opinion of Tom Bombadil too, right?
>"I guess one of the advantages of being the son of a god is that you are
>the only one on the planet that can open or close doors. It's an
>awesome power, really."
> -- Hosun S. Lee, alt.games.baldurs-gate
Heh. Heh. Heh.
>More generally, you are the only one in the game with human intelligence
>and power word: reload.
You mean that game option that you tell me everything is so much more
interesting without using? ;)
>There's a reason that there is perennial interest in finding some way to
>keep Yoshimo alive and make mods that add post-death content for him. And
>it's not because of his haircut. "I could dance on the head of the plot if
>you like."
Oh, believe me, I like what I've seen of him. So much so that I'm really sad I
don't get to see MORE. He's my favorite thief, sniffle....
>>> Things like grammar, spelling, structuring, even (up to a point)
>>> stylistic conventions are all subject to more-or-less objective
>>> criticism. Content is not.
>> I disagree. To a certain extent, at least.
>
>Here I agree.
::sways::
Whoa. Was that the world tilting on its axis? :)
>For some fun reads on similar topics, check out:
>
>http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html
>
>http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/oct02/geeksquad_1002.shtml
::bookmarks::
>> I don't want to create solely for myself,
>
>I guess this isn't the time to recommend _Atlast Shrugged_ to you ... :-)
Wait until I'm in need of toilet paper....
>For the benefit of the studio audience,
>however, it is worth pointing out that there are numerous documented
>instances of Wes sacrificing his creative vision for the benefit of the
>community (you have only to read the Sola, Tactics and Valen changelogs for
>a plethora of features and changes I despised but implemented anyway).
Really? Interesting. Must research this.
(I would normally give a longer overall reply to your post, but Futurama's
coming on in, like, five seconds, and there's no way I'm missing it, so you'll
just have to make do with these scant few sentences. ~_^)
Westley Weimer
> As an aside, I think it's a stretch to relate this annoying habit with the
> way you see Sola's happenings as transcending your own sleek self. What do
> you want? The ability to make annoying cameos yourself? SM: "Hey Sarevok,
> just thought I dropped by the inform you that we're DROPPING THE HAMMER ON
> YOU, MAN! That's right, I'm *thiiiis* close to unraveling your master plan!
> How'd you like them apples?! (Dimension Doors out)"
I cannot begin to tell you how hilarious that was. :-)
> Take the dialogue you mention: "you don't get to choose your own dialogue".
> You don't get to do it in a P&P game, either.
Barring mental domination and out-of-character knowledge I can usually make
my characters say whatever I like in a tabletop game.
> But you're still restricted to the rules of the RP system itself and to
> the implicit and untangible but still very present restrictions on
> roleplaying.
OK, so you can't talk about Coca-Cola in a medieval fantasy game. However,
I don't think SM is asking for the power to talk to Vic about diet colas. I
think he'd like some more in-character dialogue options. Your "say
anything" argument is a good one but I think it missed the point. He
doesn't want to say anything -- he just wants to be able to say more
things.
> captured in what we currently know of computer programming (which, I'm sorry
> to say, isn't a whole lot as far as the relationship to our own mental
> abilities is concerned)
Don't remind me.
> What do you want? Fifteen minutes of fame as a house rule? A "Guaranteed
> to be More Impressive than any In-Game Entity" sticker on your character
> sheet?
As much as I agree with your points here, I'm not sure this is the most
congenial way to make them. It is always important to remember the
distinction between criticizing someone's ideas and criticizing someone
directly.
> have. It's only natural -- you wouldn't be pretending to be sir Foozlum the
> Great, or even Wimpling the Insidious, if you didn't want people to admire
> the acting performance, or the amazing equipment you've amassed, or the
> (not-so-)heroic feats you've achieved -- take your pick.
Actually, if I may be so bold, I don't personally roleplay for any of those
reasons. However, since a previous message has already established that I
create things only for my own benefit, this should be easy to believe :-).
Having other people admire me (for whatever reason) is just not a concern.
> If everybody was ignoring you, you'd leave the game in ten seconds flat.
Right, because they'd be giving you the silent treatment and you wouldn't
actually be in the game (presumably in your scenario when you say "I enter
the room" the GM ignores you and your character does not actually move).
However, if all of the other players didn't think I was a good actor (or
whatever) or all of their characters didn't like my character and never
talked to him, that wouldn't stop me from playing.
> In this sense, anyone who isn't in some way, directly or indirectly,
> interacting with *your* character (stress "interacting", not "delivering
> a monologue") has no business wasting *your* valuable time, regardless of
> how relevant they are to the story.
I'll have to disagree here. Imagine that in order to defeat the ultimate
foozle you need to do some research on Mystic Item X. If you read a book
about it or listen to an aged sage deliver a monlogue you are not
"interacting' with that entity ... but they are relevant to the story and
you should be spending your time on that. You can't interact with a book or
a monologue ... but they are necessary for exposition in some cases.
> I'm guessing that you mentioned Solaufein because you feel that he is at
> least in part "unfair" or "unappealing" out of ego gratification on Wes'
> behalf. To which extent many arguments can be made for or against, but this
> would needlessly distract us from the bigger picture, I think; let's just
> leave everyone to their own opinion on that.
I'm happy to leave everyone to their own opinion on that. However, I can
also tell you what Wes was felling. Weimer creates for himself. Solaufein
was created because I didn't like the Bioware romances and because I wanted
to see how hard it would be to make a non-buggy romance. Solaufein was not
created because I wanted everyone to say "Oooh, he's such a cool NPC." In
fact, I don't really if people think he is cool or not. If I had wanted him
to be popularly accepted I would have made him strictly heterosexual, for
example. I might personally be proud of my accomplishments with Solaufien
but it's not something that other people can have a big impact on. I would
be just a proud of his technical accomplishments if there were zero
downloads. Solaufein may well share all of the characteristics of a Mary
Sue. But he wasn't created so that others would stroke my ego.
> If I write anything (whether it's a Usenet post or a mod) I'm doing so
> because *I like doing it*.
This is an important point.
> I don't give a horse's ass about how many people enjoy it, or think it's
> horrible,
Here we part company slightly. I am pleased/proud that Solaufein is
somewhat popular. I'm glad that a number of people use WeiDU. I did not
create Solaufein specifically to be popular. If people like him, that's a
nice bonus. If not, so it goes.
> Do you really want pointers on how you, whom I don't know personally (well,
> to a large extent) should go about writing an NPC I know nothing about?
Here are some important ones:
Plot your story out beforehand. A well-constructed story arc is important.
Dialogue.
Characterization.
Style.
Be true to yourself. If you aren't having fun writing it, most (including
you!) won't have fun reading it.
Basically, pretend you are writing a novel and use all the advice from that
area. If you are making a component for the tactics mod or a rules tweak
than scripting should be your primary concern. If not the dialogue (the
text the users sees) is *the most important* point. Write all of that and
little details like pictures, sound and scripting will come later.
> What else can Westley do but hold to his own beliefs?
He always has the option of forsaking even his own beliefs, sacrificing his
integrity to gain a momentary bit of peace.
> In fact, I think it's exactly the opposite -- he's rejecting them only
> after the utmost scrutiny (or with somewhat less scrutiny
This is pretty much it. The only kind of mod criticism that I explicitly
ignore is of the form "can you make this item for me?".
> Incidentally, I'm getting a bit passionate in the debate, I've noticed. I
> hope I haven't stepped over the fine borders into annoyance or
> offensiveness; neither was intended, I assure you.
I personally thought you were a bit harsh to Stephen, but presumably we're
all still friends. :-)
- Wes
Jason Compton
: For the benefit of the studio audience,
: however, it is worth pointing out that there are numerous documented
: instances of Wes sacrificing his creative vision for the benefit of the
: community (you have only to read the Sola, Tactics and Valen changelogs for
: a plethora of features and changes I despised but implemented anyway).
I was gonna point this out but I figured that it would be more meaningful
coming from you. :)
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Westley Weimer
>>"I guess one of the advantages of being the son of a god is that you are
>>the only one on the planet that can open or close doors. It's an
>>awesome power, really."
>> -- Hosun S. Lee, alt.games.baldurs-gate
> Heh. Heh. Heh.
There was a thread a while back with a challenge to name, say, nine others
who can do it (and they can only do it in specific situations). Here are
three easy ones: Hendak will open doors to get to Letinam, Irenicus will
open doors when he ambushes you at Spellhold, Lonk will open doors when you
are trapped at Spellhold. Bonus points if you can remember the others.
>>and power word: reload.
> You mean that game option that you tell me everything is so much more
> interesting without using? ;)
That's the one! Avoid it!
> Whoa. Was that the world tilting on its axis? :)
:-)
>>I guess this isn't the time to recommend _Atlast Shrugged_ to you ... :-)
> Wait until I'm in need of toilet paper....
Here's one for you:
Subject: Re: Sewer, Gas & Electric
From: Andrew Maizels <and...@one.net.au>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
I'd just like to point out to everyone that this is a really good book,
and you should all stop reading rasfw and run out and buy a copy.
In fact, between SG&E and the Illuminatus! trilogy, I was sufficiently
intrigued that I went out and bought a copy of Ayn Rand's _What is the
Name of this Book?_. No, sorry, _Atlas Shrugged_, that's the one. Of
course, I haven't actually read it; every so often I pick it up, and
say to myself: "it's a lovely day today, I think I shall go for a
walk". This book has improved my life immensely.
> Really? Interesting. Must research this.
Compton will probably chime in here and back me up.
> (I would normally give a longer overall reply to your post, but
S'ok.
- Wes
Jason Compton
: Compton will probably chime in here and back me up.
Heh. You are creating self-fulfilling prophecies here.
Yes, people, a whole lot of things in those mods, particularly Solaufein
after the 50 mark (although certainly some things earlier, like my banter
abuse), weren't Wes's idea and wouldn't be in unless he figured it would
make other, non-Wes people happy.
Pretty much anything that weakens the bad guys. :)
Um... the separation of Tactics from Solaufein? That was something you
resisted for a while, I believe on the Weimeric "All Players Should Be At
Risk Of Seeing Everything I've Done" principle.
Some recent new dialogue which has struck some long-time observers as
seeming somewhat out of character for the big S may also fall into this
category.
...that's not to say that every single suggestion that's been incorporated
is hateful to Wes, I don't think. Pretty sure, anyway. :)
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Stephen Mackey
>There was a thread a while back with a challenge to name, say, nine others
>who can do it (and they can only do it in specific situations). Here are
>three easy ones: Hendak will open doors to get to Letinam, Irenicus will
>open doors when he ambushes you at Spellhold, Lonk will open doors when you
>are trapped at Spellhold. Bonus points if you can remember the others.
Hnn. Does Irenicus in Hell count? He DOES open the funky door, after all...
or you and he open it together, I guess....
>>>and power word: reload.
>> You mean that game option that you tell me everything is so much more
>> interesting without using? ;)
>
>That's the one! Avoid it!
It does give Valen an interesting "balancing" feature. But there's still
Imprisonment to deal with, which nukes non-berserkers and non-mages until you
get Freedom available. Bleh.
>Here's one for you:
*snippity*
I've actually seen that post quoted before over in
rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan. It seems fairly popular. I can't imagine
why.... ;)
Kish
> Westley Weimer said:
>
>
>>There was a thread a while back with a challenge to name, say, nine others
>>who can do it (and they can only do it in specific situations). Here are
>>three easy ones: Hendak will open doors to get to Letinam, Irenicus will
>>open doors when he ambushes you at Spellhold, Lonk will open doors when you
>>are trapped at Spellhold. Bonus points if you can remember the others.
>
>
> Hnn. Does Irenicus in Hell count? He DOES open the funky door, after all...
> or you and he open it together, I guess....
No, /you/ open it, /he/ keeps it shut as long as he can.
Gebhard Blucher
[snips]
> There's a reason that there is perennial interest in finding some way to
> keep Yoshimo alive and make mods that add post-death content for him. And
> it's not because of his haircut. "I could dance on the head of the plot if
> you like."
>
Bow down before the power of Yoshimo's mullet.
Recently, I saw a thread where people were inserting the word 'pants'
into lines said by the characters. I'll something similar, but use
'Yoshimo's mullet' instead.
Minsc:
See Yoshimo's mullet Boo? Run, Boo! Run!
Make way, villainy! Yoshimo's mullet coming through!
Imoen:
I used to dream of Dryads and Yoshimo's beatiful mullet.
Yoshimo's mullet is just too darn creepy. I really want out of here.
Jaheira:
Nature could find a home here if Yoshimo's mullet were properly
cleansed and balanced.
Nature has many children that call Yoshimo's mullet home. I am not one
of them.
Viconia:
Yoshimo, I must admit something to you, and don't think me too
brusque, but there's something in your mullet that I find fraudulent.
The stink of Yoshimo's mullet...how I despise them all.
Aerie:
Yoshimo's mullet is a lot more exciting than any circus!
I...I won't let Yoshimo's mullet be hurt!
Haer'Dalis:
Beneath the earth Yoshimo's mullet await us...and, just think, we
shan't need go far to lie in our graves!
For Yoshimo's mullet, I strike a blow!
Jan:
Hmph. Being around Yoshimo's mullet too long is sort of like having
the Calimshite itch, isn't it? Except for the uncomfortable burning
sensation. And the rash. But still.
Sarevok:
Yoshimo's mullet comes for you, feel its icy breath!!
What if we were to return to Yoshimo's mullet together. What would
people say, do you think? Hehe..hahahahaa...
Bodhi:
You have arrived, but all is not well...return when you have Yoshimo's
mullet under control.
No! NO! It's mine! Yoshimo's mullet is mine!
Irenicus:
You are but a gnat, compared to Yoshimo's mullet.
Yoshimo:
So there is sanity in all of this madness. If you are not in league
with the evil that dwells in this unholy place, Yoshimo's mullet begs
your assistance.
CHARNAME: THE Yoshimo's mullet? Feared by all?
I think that's (more than) enough for now. :)
GB
Kish
Save file...
My stomach hurts from laughing.
Stephen Mackey
>Bow down before the power of Yoshimo's mullet.
>
>Recently, I saw a thread where people were inserting the word 'pants'
>into lines said by the characters. I'll something similar, but use
>'Yoshimo's mullet' instead.
::standing applause::
That was beautiful. Encore! Encooore!
Troll
> CHARNAME: THE Yoshimo's mullet? Feared by all?
Bravo!
PS. I wonder: in Amn, what's the equivalent of a rusty '77 Trans Am? And
whatever it is, where did Yoshimo leave his?
Westley Weimer
> Pretty much anything that weakens the bad guys. :)
:-)
> Um... the separation of Tactics from Solaufein? That was something you
> resisted for a while, I believe on the Weimeric "All Players Should Be At
> Risk Of Seeing Everything I've Done" principle.
Yes, I Am Evil.
> Some recent new dialogue which has struck some long-time observers as
> seeming somewhat out of character for the big S may also fall into this
> category.
That was mostly Wes not paying full attention -- after some people brought
it to my attention I realized that even I didn't think it sounded like
Solaufein.
> ...that's not to say that every single suggestion that's been incorporated
> is hateful to Wes, I don't think. Pretty sure, anyway. :)
Trust me, it's much, much less than 100%. :-)
- Wes
Westley Weimer
> Bow down before the power of Yoshimo's mullet.
This was quite hilarious.
> I think that's (more than) enough for now. :)
I think you meant "not enough by any stretch of the imagination; I will be
back shortly with more." We'll be waiting.
- Wes
Jason Compton
:> Um... the separation of Tactics from Solaufein? That was something you
:> resisted for a while, I believe on the Weimeric "All Players Should Be At
:> Risk Of Seeing Everything I've Done" principle.
: Yes, I Am Evil.
That really wasn't what I was saying, Wes. Just because I put it in caps
doesn't mean I disapprove. And you've done the interjects and so forth so
you've proven to be a sport.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Rassadihn
> Rassadihn said:
>
> >Take the dialogue you mention: "you don't get to choose your own
dialogue".
> >You don't get to do it in a P&P game, either.
>
> Actually, yes, you do. Now you're just being silly in an attempt to make
your
> point. Which is unnecessary, because you made your point before getting
into
> this ridiculous claim. ;)
>
OK, it's faintly ridiculous, I admit.
OK, it's pretty wildly far out there.
OK, it's ridiculous. I withdraw it. Withdrawn! Stricken from the record! Let
nobody mention it again! I didn't do it! It wasn't me, it was the one-armed
man! *cough* You get the idea.
> >Oh sure, you're playing with
> >humans, which gives you rather a huge advantage as far as expressive
power
> >is concerned. But you're still restricted to the rules of the RP system
> >itself and to the implicit and untangible but still very present
> >restrictions on roleplaying.
>
> You're confused, or possibly just using the opportunity to stand on a
soapbox
> and make a point that has little overall relevance. I'm talking about
> restrictions on actions that are already possible within the rules of the
game.
> You're talking about the rules themselves.
Be careful. You're taking for granted that there's a clear distinction
between the two. That's a tricky point in general and doubly so in a
computer RPG. But let's assume for the moment that I'm willing to act like a
normal person and take your point as you doubtlessly intended it...
Incidentally, this is Usenet. You don't just get free opportunities to stand
on soapboxes, they're practically complimentary with every post. And they
come with their own shelter for the environment. And they've got instant
broadcast abilities to other parks. It's just too good to pass up...
> Dude, get off your soapbox. You're talking to a writer... no one else
knows
> better than someone who's finished a novel that perfection is impossible.
But
> it should always be aimed for. Much as it is impossible to be a perfect
human
> being, but you should always TRY, every day.
>
Disagree, but not for the reasons you think. *sigh* Let's not go into this,
it would take way too much time to explain all of this and it would be of
little gain to either of us. The written word is just not a medium for this.
<snip>
> >Do you want me to count the lines? :-) But on a more serious note --
*just
> >how much dialogue is needed*?
>
> Cheap Answer: More. ;)
>
*snort* Thanks for completely ignoring the point. :-)
> > Issue regular polls to find the hot spot, fine-tuning him to be
> >just appealing enough to just enough people? Personally, I find such a
> >utilitarian view appalling, and I cannot for the life of me see any way
of
> >doing this but to trust your own instincts, misguided as others may think
> >they are.
>
> Now we're getting into OpinionLand, which is, btw, what I wanted in the
first
> place. ;) Regardless of whether or not I agree with what you think, I
wanted
> to HEAR it, and take it into account with my own beliefs.
>
What have you decided? That you like the utilitarian view? :-) JK.
> >Other people's opinions may hone those instincts for future work,
> >yes -- but how can you ask opinions on something you haven't even done
yet?
>
> Since it concerns the basic nuts and bolts of writing, I sure can. ;) Any
> writer worth his salt has an opinion on this sort of issue. The details,
the
> details are for later, along with the fine tweaking. There's a difference
> between "playtesting" and "radically altering the basic design." Ya gotta
get
> the design down first, 'cause altering it later is hell.
>
Hey, I'm not arguing with *that*. I'm a computer programmer, don't get me
started on looking before you leap or stylistic issues - there isn't a
soapbox high enough for that. :-)
The point -- no, let me rephrase that to get in the spirit of things -- my
*opinion* was that it was of very little value to ask the particular
question you asked, because it's just not specific enough.
<snip>
> >I disagree with the
> >idea "the system" as defined in BG 1 is *wrong*, for example, even though
I
> >agree with your claim that the characters would be more appealing if they
> >were more emotionally involving.
>
> So what you're saying is, you agree that there's a problem, you just don't
> think it's as severe as I do.
>
No, but again, I'm not even going to try to explain what I *did* mean, it
would take me too much time and it would bore you. Let's just agree to the
common opinion that characters *we'd* like to see *ought* to be more
involving than BG 1 characters.
> >Pleasing the audience is what gives you a deluge of commercial trash.
>
> And ignoring the audience is what gives you Plan 9 From Outer Space.
>
Touché. Plan 9 is still more enjoyable for sheer camp value, though. :-)
> >Oh, I know (how do I love this phrase? Let me count the ways...): as an
> >author, you want to be "heard", and your chances of getting heard
increase
> >with the number of people who like what you do. Well, I'm going to put it
> >bluntly: wanting to get noticed is a crappy reason for doing anything,
even
> >as a partial motivation.
>
> Actually, you're wrong. And being rather rude and condescending about it
too,
> I might add.
Impossible. I'm never rude to people I'm not personally acquainted with. :-)
Seriously, though: I'm hampered by the medium here (or more accurately, by
my ability to use it effectively). I was expressing a general belief here,
not trying to imply that your sole reason of being was to get noticed. I
apologize for the infelicity.
> Of course I want to be noticed. Hell, everyone wants to be noticed to
some
> extent or other. But that is not my motivation for creating anything. My
> motivation for creating is the innate joy I get out of it. That's all.
If
> being noticed isn't part of my motivation, then why am I creating for
others as
> well as myself, and not SOLELY myself? Because I recognize that if you
> creating only for yourself, you become blind to the flaws inherent in your
own
> point of view. You must balance your view with the views of others to
achieve
> the artistically best possible result.
>
OK, all my arguments are hereby withdrawn. The original discussion was based
on a misconception on my part. Then again, all discussion I partake in seem
to revolve around that. I really should look into that. :-)
<snip>
> >What else can Westley do but hold to his own beliefs?
>
> Take into account what other people believe? This is how people's beliefs
> change, after all. Or, more usually, get tweaked. And, even if you
disagree
> with it all anyway, there's never any harm in learning about other
people's
> opinions.
>
I want to say a hundred things here, which is why I shouldn't say any.
> >I think it doesn't do him justice
> >to suggest that he considers the beliefs of others worthless, or
ignorable.
>
> I agree, I was exaggerating unfairly. At least I didn't go rolling off
into
> completely wild tangents though. Nyah, nyah.
>
How rude and condescending! :-) Sorry for the tangents. I'm just a very
lonely and frustrated person. Would you like to be my friend? I could get
you free cable. :-D No bonus points for catching that reference, though.
<snip>
> > The Mackey knife was left
> >firmly in its display case. :-)
>
> Don't worry, I'm not offended by any of the points you wanted to make.
Mildly
> annoyed by your grabbing at tangents and running with them, but no more so
than
> if you woke me up with a country song in the morning. ;)
>
That's a much milder effect than what I could ever fear for, trust me. ;-)
R.
Rassadihn
news:b3uhek$2jhh$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Rassadihn <rassadih...@this.gmx.net> wrote:
> > "Stephen Mackey" <kark...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > As an aside, I think it's a stretch to relate this annoying habit with
the
> > way you see Sola's happenings as transcending your own sleek self. What
do
> > you want? The ability to make annoying cameos yourself? SM: "Hey
Sarevok,
> > just thought I dropped by the inform you that we're DROPPING THE HAMMER
ON
> > YOU, MAN! That's right, I'm *thiiiis* close to unraveling your master
plan!
> > How'd you like them apples?! (Dimension Doors out)"
>
> I cannot begin to tell you how hilarious that was. :-)
>
<snip>
> > What do you want? Fifteen minutes of fame as a house rule? A "Guaranteed
> > to be More Impressive than any In-Game Entity" sticker on your character
> > sheet?
>
> As much as I agree with your points here, I'm not sure this is the most
> congenial way to make them. It is always important to remember the
> distinction between criticizing someone's ideas and criticizing someone
> directly.
>
I forgot to apply the Outer World Sarcasm Filter, which would have reduced
anything that could be interpreted as sarcasm to merely mild irony (probably
by adding a smiley or two). Do tug on my sleeve if it looks like I'm
criticizing someone directly, because this is never my intention. I'm just
phrasing it badly in that case.
<snip>
> > In this sense, anyone who isn't in some way, directly or indirectly,
> > interacting with *your* character (stress "interacting", not "delivering
> > a monologue") has no business wasting *your* valuable time, regardless
of
> > how relevant they are to the story.
>
> I'll have to disagree here. Imagine that in order to defeat the ultimate
> foozle you need to do some research on Mystic Item X. If you read a book
> about it or listen to an aged sage deliver a monlogue you are not
> "interacting' with that entity ... but they are relevant to the story and
> you should be spending your time on that. You can't interact with a book
or
> a monologue ... but they are necessary for exposition in some cases.
>
Orthogonal to my point, but my illustration of it was ill-conceived to begin
with.
<snip>
> > I don't give a horse's ass about how many people enjoy it, or think it's
> > horrible,
>
> Here we part company slightly. I am pleased/proud that Solaufein is
> somewhat popular. I'm glad that a number of people use WeiDU. I did not
> create Solaufein specifically to be popular. If people like him, that's a
> nice bonus. If not, so it goes.
>
We're not parting company, actually, it's in my choice of phrasing again. I
meant "give about" in a much stricter sense. Bygones.
<snip>
> > What else can Westley do but hold to his own beliefs?
>
> He always has the option of forsaking even his own beliefs, sacrificing
his
> integrity to gain a momentary bit of peace.
>
Pfff. Coward! Peace is for wussies. :-)
> > In fact, I think it's exactly the opposite -- he's rejecting them only
> > after the utmost scrutiny (or with somewhat less scrutiny
>
> This is pretty much it. The only kind of mod criticism that I explicitly
> ignore is of the form "can you make this item for me?".
>
Errr... The criticism in that would come in where, exactly? That's like a
doing a quality review of a bank's services by complaining that they *ought*
to give *you* more money. :-)
> > Incidentally, I'm getting a bit passionate in the debate, I've noticed.
I
> > hope I haven't stepped over the fine borders into annoyance or
> > offensiveness; neither was intended, I assure you.
>
> I personally thought you were a bit harsh to Stephen, but presumably we're
> all still friends. :-)
>
No, I'll have none of that! I declare all of you to be my mortal enemies!
Aut Caesar, aut nihil! Cry havoc, and let slip... *cough* My caffeine
saturation levels are getting dangerously high again, obviously...
R.
Rassadihn
Rassadihn
"Westley Weimer" <wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:b3ufl4$2ipq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >> Things like grammar, spelling, structuring, even (up to a point)
> >> stylistic conventions are all subject to more-or-less objective
> >> criticism. Content is not.
> > I disagree. To a certain extent, at least.
>
> Here I agree. The content can be (and has been) the subject of formal
> criticism. Spelling is given as a supposedly objective example, but even
it
> only makes sense within a particular system (e.g., american english,
> british english, esperanto). The plot can be examined using similar formal
> systems (e.g., the hero's quest, archetypes, ...) as can other issues
> (e.g., their treatment of "romance").
>
here -- if I catch the bastard who started that debate! Heh.
Taken to its logical extreme, I would be arguing that there's no such thing
as bad writing, only "different" writing. Yes, wouldn't that be a nice world
to live in! I was rather aiming for something near the middle with just a
bit more radicalness to one end than is common. In particular, the plot
analysis you talk of works by recognizing common abstract patterns and
discussing how they are implemented and why they should (not) be included in
this particular story, how they relate to others etcetera; this is objective
up to the point of choosing the system to work in -- and of course the same
argument holds for spelling, but it's just much less pronounced there.
"Pure" objectivism is a chimaera, for sure (a chimera, I mean...); I was
arguing that content is a far less easy target for objective criticism than
it's generally assumed to be, as opposed to spellling.
I guess I should have used more words than just "more-or-less", eh? :-)
> For some fun reads on similar topics, check out:
>
> http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html
People really ought to read this for themselves, but one brilliant excerpt
the author gives from one Susan Schutz I just have to repeat here: "Our
relationship / is beautiful / because / it is ours / because / it relates /
to us." Brought a tear to my eye, that, it really did. I'm sure you can
imagine the associated emotional state.
<snip>
R.
Stephen Mackey
>It's *stretched*, not ridiculous.
>
>OK, it's faintly ridiculous, I admit.
>
>OK, it's pretty wildly far out there.
>
>OK, it's ridiculous. I withdraw it. Withdrawn! Stricken from the record! Let
>nobody mention it again! I didn't do it! It wasn't me, it was the one-armed
>man! *cough* You get the idea.
Wow. Normally I don't actually win when I argue by assertion. ;)
>*snort* Thanks for completely ignoring the point. :-)
You're welcome.
Some cheap shots are just too good to pass up....
>What have you decided? That you like the utilitarian view? :-) JK
I have decided that I need to experiment some, keeping the various povs in
mind, and see what comes of it. The results will undoubtedly either reinforce
or weaken the povs, and I'll be able to select and discard until I get the
right mix.
>The point -- no, let me rephrase that to get in the spirit of things -- my
>*opinion* was that it was of very little value to ask the particular
>question you asked, because it's just not specific enough.
I don't think it was vague.
::pouts::
But everyone else seems to disagree, so maybe it is. Le sigh.
>> I agree, I was exaggerating unfairly. At least I didn't go rolling off
>into
>> completely wild tangents though. Nyah, nyah.
>>
>How rude and condescending! :-)
Oh, see, that was playful teasing. Entirely different thing.
::mock-solemn::
>Would you like to be my friend? I could get
>you free cable. :-D
Get me a new graphics card so I can play NWN and I'll be your personal whipping
whore. How's that?
Rassadihn
<snip>
> Wow. Normally I don't actually win when I argue by assertion. ;)
>
myself. But if it makes you feel good, by all means, you've won. :-)
<snip>
> >Would you like to be my friend? I could get
> >you free cable. :-D
>
> Get me a new graphics card so I can play NWN and I'll be your personal
whipping
> whore. How's that?
>
<understatement>Eeeh, I'm a litle short on cash.</understatement>. But I
hear NWN is overrated anyway.
R.
cognitive dissonance
(in message <b3uu1h$1pacuf$1...@ID-175657.news.dfncis.de>):
> Westley Weimer wrote:
> [snips]
>> There's a reason that there is perennial interest in finding some way to
>> keep Yoshimo alive and make mods that add post-death content for him. And
>> it's not because of his haircut. "I could dance on the head of the plot if
>> you like."
>>
>
> Bow down before the power of Yoshimo's mullet.
>
> Recently, I saw a thread where people were inserting the word 'pants'
> into lines said by the characters. I'll something similar, but use
> 'Yoshimo's mullet' instead.
Holy crap that was funny. . .tummy hurts and eyes still watering. I think
I'll add those into my next game. . .
> I think that's (more than) enough for now. :)
>
> GB
>
More more more!
Cynthia Crise
news:b3ufl4$2ipq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> > I don't want to create solely for myself,
>
> I guess this isn't the time to recommend _Atlast Shrugged_ to you ... :-)
>
When I was 16, I thought Atlas Shrugged was the best book I'd ever read.
Now that I'm, um, older than 16, I think it's the longest book I ever read.
But pick up The Fountainhead (which has all the same ideas a tad more
concisely) if only for one of the best opening lines in all fiction.
About creation, I think that a creation--whether a book, song, or
building--demands an audience to be complete. To create without seeking an
audience is either pointless or a journal, which may be the same thing. Not
to say that we create *for* an audience--we create for ourselves, what we
want to read, play, live in, etc. I have heard so many authors say that
they write the book they want to read. I would say that the artist creates
for themselves, but edits for the audience--language to obtain a certain
rating, difficulty level to enhance playability, etc.
Cyn