Register

Author Topic: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?  (Read 16717 times)

Cmdr_King

  • Strong and Full of Love
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5567
  • Is Gay
    • View Profile
    • CK Blog
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2010, 04:06:34 AM »
Idea.

Considering that we already have the big bad as our heroine's mentor, and at least two other planned party betrayals, I feel safe saying that a strong theme is shaping up to be Trust.

While I'm opposed to having betrayal/death/abandonment as options for every PC, certainly having preplanned cases is managable.  But... it occured to me that there was a way to put story branching into the process.  Namely; make it possible to prevent and/or recover the betrayals of the party.

Now, I don't mean like have big telegraphed scenes with A/B choices, or point systems, or the like that decide whether they go through with it.  Instead, although I'm uncertain on the precise right approach, we have a system in place that allows for feeling out the mood of your characters and interacting between them.  So, for example, we don't show Erastus revealing the "prophecy" to Samantha.  Instead, at that point in the story, we have a spot picked out where it occurs, and have Sam act out of sorts.  At this point, supposing you've been maintaining a dialogue with her, Noemi may be able to convince her to discuss it.  At that point, if you stay on top of her, you might, say, convince her that Noemi would rather risk death than give up in her quest.  And, thus, she never betrays the party.  While obviously something else has to do so to keep the plot moving, I tend to think that we've established Erastus as enough of a magnificent bastard to pull it off alone (and secretly, if this happens before his reveal).

Now, Erastus would have to be immune to this because ultimately the plot doesn't work without it, although certainly you could have his dialogue play out differently, or tweak scenes, or various things as a substitute.  Anyway, the key is I feel this is a stronger reinforcement of the overall theme, that the player has to make efforts to earn and maintain the party's trust, without breaking the established character of the backstory (afterall, RPGs are stressful things for characters.  It can be easy to get too focused on what you're doing to be a good friend!)
CK: She is the female you
Snow: Speaking of Sluts!

<NotMiki> I mean, we're talking life vs. liberty, with the pursuit of happiness providing color commentary.

Yoshiken

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2068
  • Yay!
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2010, 04:09:34 AM »
Now, Erastus would have to be immune to this because ultimately the plot doesn't work without it, although certainly you could have his dialogue play out differently, or tweak scenes, or various things as a substitute.

Definitely a good plan (to the whole post) and the quoted part can be done pretty easily - just focus much more on the mentor/student relationship than the overarching plot.

Sir Donald 3.2

  • Wanting some Kingdom conquering
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2010, 03:39:04 PM »
Regarding "Samantha", it seems to me like one of two things would happen after she betrays you:

A:  There will be a point near the end of the game where Samantha and a few soldiers block the way.  If you win, you get some (seemingly see C) last words from Samantha then move on.  However, if you lose, Samantha has a case of "What Have I DONE!!!!!!" and pulls out a revival item for Nomei and lets her on her way... or something...

B:  When the BigBad finally reveals his true colors, she could come as part of a Calvary to help Nomei fight him.

Or perhaps C: Start with A in its entirety, and later, Samantha makes a Heroic Sacrafice when the BigBad reveals himself to protect Nomei and psyche her up for the Final Battle.


As for the theme... how can Trust be set into the current nature conflict of Dissonance vs Quiet (with the Golden Median, Resonance, being the correct answer)?  The world conflict suggests balance/moderation to be the moral.

Yoshiken

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2068
  • Yay!
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2010, 04:12:29 PM »
...just to note, Resonance isn't the correct answer. The correct answer is having all three together.
Anyways, balance/moderation is always going to be the key aim for a victory, it's just how they get there that matters. And how they get there depends on the trust and betrayal of their allies, so that's really the key theme here.

Sir Donald 3.2

  • Wanting some Kingdom conquering
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #79 on: January 23, 2010, 04:28:08 PM »
Ok, hold up.  Resonance isn't merely the Middle of a Sliding Scale?  It isn't the Ego to Dissonance's Id and Quieting's Superego?

Then what's Resonance's opposite?

Yoshiken

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2068
  • Yay!
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #80 on: January 23, 2010, 04:43:14 PM »
Okay. Assuming I'm understanding this, at least, this is how it works.

Dissonance is used to mass produce resources, but this causes the Disquiet.
Quieting is used to remove the Disquiet, but the rate at which Disquiet's removed is slower than the rate at which it increases.
Resonance is used to empower the Quieting so that the whole thing balances out.

So, none of them have opposites, as such. Or, more, Dissonance is the opposite of both of the others, but in different ways.
Or, at least, that's how I've read it. Would appreciate someone confirming this either way, personally. ;s

074

  • Suggests the birth of an abomination
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #81 on: January 24, 2010, 01:38:44 AM »
Okay.  To clarify things.

There is no sliding scale, nor does any one of the magic 'types' have an opposite.  If anything, all three are complementary to one another.  Think of it as three 'components' to a more complicated system.

As was stated: Dissonance creates the initial effect--be it resource-production or a large-scale attack, but also creates the 'Disquiet' side-effect in large enough quantities.

Quieting removes the Disquiet, but by (possibly nearly, if not completely) killing the Flow altogether.

Resonance basically restores the Flow back to normal from the 'dead' state caused by the Quieting, though it can strengthen it past that value.

There is no sliding scale, there is no paired opposition.  It's basically a three-part system, of which all three parts are necessary.
<+Nama-EmblemOfFire> ...Have the GhebFE guy and the ostian princess guy collaborate.
 <@Elecman> Seems reasonable.

Yoshiken

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2068
  • Yay!
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #82 on: January 24, 2010, 01:54:56 AM »
Mm, as I thought. So... still kinda works with the idea of balance, but like I said, the focus isn't on the final goal, it's how they get there.

As for the three choices for Samantha, I'd honestly prefer the simple splitpath of betrayal/trust. Trying to create something too complex just ends up making it forced and, in the case of NOBLE SACRIFICE (after betrayal), it pretty much destroys whatever worth the original scene had. The idea of a betrayal isn't to have the character suddenly turn around again (hi Kain!), it's to create the initial impact and nothing else.

074

  • Suggests the birth of an abomination
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #83 on: January 24, 2010, 08:22:12 AM »
Character concepts I've come up with and originally posted in an earlier post, but moved here to be noticeable.  All meant to be Isolde path, potentially outdated.


Faulheit

An Academy dropout turned mercenary, Faulheit is noted to be generally lackadaisical in nature.  Coming from a Noble family that came upon economic hard times and being enlisted into the Academy in the same class as Isolde, he quickly learned that even with all that one can do in one's situation, things are out of his control.  Far from taking a fatalistic viewpoint on matters, he instead drifted along in life, trying to enjoy things as much as he could.   He never did pass, though he did eventually decide, partly at Katarine's behest, to take up a job as a mercenary.  Eventually, he was hired on a job for the Empire itself and ended up, in a twist, working under Isolde.

Faulheit has a severe disregard for authority, and tends to do the bare minimum of work possible.  In the end, he typically does what he feels like, and doesn't care too much what others think, holding a general refusal to do anything that goes against his own interests.  Despite the discrepancy in their performance, he befriended Isolde in the Academy anyway.  He's generally unreliable, but otherwise likeable.

Faulheit himself uses a heavy crossbow for a weapon, in addition to his Dissonance ability--having an affinity for wind.  Fundamentally a long-ranged combatant, he prefers to stay out of melee at all costs, though some question whether that's due to lack of ability, or sheer laziness.  He has more potential than he shows more often than not.  He just doesn't care for actually using it that often.


Selena

A high-ranking Dissonance Corps officer, she was the daughter of an influential noble.  Selena was sent into the Academy at an early age, despite showing low Dissonance potential to begin with.  It was there she eventually met Isolde, and the two became close friends, even with a friendly one-sided rivalry with her--while Isolde had high natural talent, Selena did not.  As such, she worked hard just to try to keep up, and this ultimately ended with her graduating not far under her 'rival'.  She eventually entered into the military, and with her developed Dissonance powers, she quickly caught notice of higher-ups as she rose through the ranks.  Her friendship with Isolde ended for the worse, however, in the battle of XXXX--her eldest brother, a regular soldier in the army, was killed under her command with many others.  She grew resentful and hateful of her, and while her father was sated by the supposed 'execution' of Isolde for her mistake, she had a few doubts of her own as to whether that was really true...

Selena can generally be described as having 'hair-trigger emotions', with particularly nasty mood swings depending on the situation and subject.  Mention of her dead brother or Isolde will tend to sour her mood pretty quickly in general.  She has not gotten over her brother's death, notably, and appears as if she won't.  As opposed to Isolde's commanding style, Selena tends to be a bit more hot-headed and aggressive, insisting on a forceful attack.  At the same time, however, she is adamantly against sacrificing soldiers for the sake of obtaining victory--a bit perfectionistic in that regard.

This has not escaped her personal combat style.  Utilizing a rapier for her melee weapon as taught in her childhood, her Dissonance use is her real means of combat.  With Light-affinity Dissonance, she utilizes varied light-based attacks to her advantage, burning and cutting through targets with focused beams all the same.  However, in her case, she is unfortunate that she requires a heavy amount of concentration to utilize her Dissonance.  She possesses a rare Dissonance amplifier, the [Fabularis Sigil, name subject to change].  However, she wouldn't dare use it lightly; while the amplifier does give her a massive power boost, it's also extremely dangerous; prolonged usage would most certainly kill the practitioner through Dissonance overexposure and Disquieting.

(Selena would ideally be an antagonist on Isolde's subplot.  Possibly a recruitable one later--be it around the end of Isolde's branch or at the final dungeon pending on events.  And yes, she's supposed to be the daughter of the same noble Isolde royally pissed off.  She's just royally pissed off for rather obvious reasons)


Gier

Gier is another Dissonance Corps officer, and a noted sadist in combat and hedonist off the battlefield.  Susceptible to getting too caught up in his pursuit of a good time, be it in a fight or out.  Growing up in a fairly lawless area, he clawed his way to the top prior to his forced induction into the academy and Dissonance corps, by the means of his Dissonance use and following a simple rule; "Power is authority."  Due to dissention, he barely passed his academy education, but managed to become inducted into the military, becoming weary of being unable to fight.  His nature, significant power, and seeming inability to be killed earned him the fear of the rebel Guardians, and while his conduct is noted to be particularly unbecoming of an officer, he had gotten favorable enough results on the field that he wasn't expelled.

Gier feels that, given his ability, he has no reason not to do whatever he wants with those weaker than him--anyone who objects, in his mind, had better have the power to back it up.  He looks down upon Resonance and especially the magically-dead as anything from playthings to mere annoyances, depending on his mood.  Furthermore, he has a notable tendency to intimidate and threaten underlings who question his own choices.  It usually takes the presence of a superior officer and sometimes a viable threat from his own side in order for him to follow orders, but is kept around due to the results he gets on the battlefield.  He is notably known to take liberties with prisoners and victims that are better left unmentioned.  Jarringly, despite his twisted personality, he has a beautiful, effeminate (read:bishounen) appearance.

Gier's dissonance expertise is for [type, thinking earth or metal], and he's noted for being a rare Dissonance practitioner who regularly wears heavy armor in combat.  His combat style is forceful, but decidedly lacking in grace and somewhat clumsy, compensated for by his notable ability to take punishment in combat.  (Haven't decided on a weapon he'd use, imagining he'd use something particularly heavy)

(Yeah, he's clearly meant to be a villain of sorts--though having it made clear that it's definitely more him.  Possibly a plot catalyst of sorts, but not a major player)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 09:39:31 AM by Namagomi »
<+Nama-EmblemOfFire> ...Have the GhebFE guy and the ostian princess guy collaborate.
 <@Elecman> Seems reasonable.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #84 on: January 24, 2010, 08:45:05 AM »
Two neurons bounced off each other.

Just gonna copy/paste since I can't think of an articulate way to describe it right now.

<AndrewRogue> I'm idly recalling
<AndrewRogue> I've suggested that Guardians are not those who have the magical sixth sense but are taught a crude manner of harnassing the "perfect magic" under the guise of a fighting style
<AndrewRogue> It occurs to me why that might actually make sense.
<AndrewRogue> Disquiet = Area of fucked up flow, right?
<Namagomi> Yeah
<AndrewRogue> Well. Logically speaking, turning on your sense the Flow sixth sense in an area like that... would be a bad deal.
<Namagomi> Indeed.
<CmdrKing> Ah, yes.  better post that one before you forget it!
<AndrewRogue> (This would also much better make sense of what makes Guardians unique and why their skills are different)

Sir Donald 3.2

  • Wanting some Kingdom conquering
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #85 on: January 24, 2010, 03:42:04 PM »
Ok, it's a Rock-Paper-Scissor system:  Quieting reverses the disquiet left by Dissonance but at the cost of disrupting the flow.  Resonance restores the flow, but could also be made to amplify dissonance (and its disquiet) when used in direct conjunction.  And the side effects of Dissonance by itself are well known.

I'm just not that keen into an open system, preferring a closed-loop.

As for the three choices for Samantha, I'd honestly prefer the simple splitpath of betrayal/trust. Trying to create something too complex just ends up making it forced and, in the case of NOBLE SACRIFICE (after betrayal), it pretty much destroys whatever worth the original scene had. The idea of a betrayal isn't to have the character suddenly turn around again (hi Kain!), it's to create the initial impact and nothing else.

So that would knock out Option B.  (Straight Calvary)

Option A is a boss fight which, if you lose, Samantha would be all "what have I done?" when she realizes she's killed her best friend.  (Remember her motive for betraying Nomei is to try to save her... unless she now honestly believes Nomei to be an actual threat to the world (or the nation) rather than merely being a threat to herself.)  After which, she deserves at least a chance to impersonate Zero.  This could all come during her betrayal, in fact.

I'm just saying that when(if) Samantha betrays the party, that shouldn't be the end of it.  She should be either Rewarded as a Traitor Deserves (i.e. Judas Iscariot) or be part of the ending cutscenes (and perhaps herself asking the questions the players should be asking as to why the ending is turning out the way it is ("And now it's time for Ask Dumbledore!) and asking for (and receiving) forgiveness ala Simon Peter.)  The latter could also be a good cap to the Trust theme.  (And possibly make her available for After-Game play should we allow it.)

Dark Holy Elf

  • Moderator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8135
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #86 on: January 24, 2010, 06:58:45 PM »
More thoughts, which I voiced in chat but might as well put down here, too:

-On being able to avert PC betrayals by choosing the right dialog options: Opposed. As I mentioned before, I think all this does is encourage players to FAQ things to avoid the bad situation. Sometimes betrayals, deaths, and other bad things happen. I pretty much strongly object to the PCs being psychic enough to avert them through the right dialog options. Maybe as a "What if..." on a New Game+, but leary about NG+ style plot in general.

Now, where I am much more open to having options is what to do with PCs post betrayal. I am fine with the player judging whether Artur and/or Samantha can be redeemed.

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Cmdr_King

  • Strong and Full of Love
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5567
  • Is Gay
    • View Profile
    • CK Blog
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #87 on: January 24, 2010, 11:00:07 PM »
Well, I wouldn't want it to be dialogue options.  The idea isn't to have random dialogues out of nowhere with obvious yes/no outcomes, but to provide concrete rewards for players who take the time to get to know their PCs.  The general idea is that you'd have this sort of relationship option for the entire cast, but that in the case of preplanned betrayals these provide an opportunity to change their mind/provide a foundation to make their forgiveness plausible. 

While forgiveness might be the better option from a story flow and thematic standpoint, I feel like in Samantha's case it's the less believable option.  Given that her motivation is her love for Noemi, I feel like betraying her and nearly getting her killed would produce such guilt that she'd either put herself into exile and utterly avoid the party, or just outright kill herself.  Even if Noemi (and the player) can forgive her, I don't think she could.
(I know, we haven't fleshed out the characters to this degree, but... from a narrative standpoint this is what makes sense to me)
CK: She is the female you
Snow: Speaking of Sluts!

<NotMiki> I mean, we're talking life vs. liberty, with the pursuit of happiness providing color commentary.

Excal

  • Chibi Terror That Flaps in the Night
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2603
  • Let's Get Adorable
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #88 on: January 24, 2010, 11:02:52 PM »
There's also the fact that Redemption is not for everyone.  I like the idea of it not actually being something that can be chosen, and that where it does happen is the place where groundwork was laid for it ahead of time.

DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6939
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2010, 01:26:44 AM »
Fun idea!

Everyone is a potential betrayer.

Seriously, let's have a 'preferred' path where Erastus is the big bad, BUT... depending on dialogue choices (if you're really sweet to Erastus, but say you scorn Eirwen at every opportunity), then you can actually change who the final boss is to one of your party members.

Sure, it requires making -all- of characters a little grey and conniving, but... that's actually kind of interesting.

Just some quick thoughts on how this might play out, nothing set in stone:

Erastus - standard path, he's been out to betray us for a while. If you're Extremely Nice to him, you can change his mind, and starts trying to undo his plans, though it might be Too Late in some scenarios, and one of the other PCs ends up finding out about his plans and trying to implement it themselves.

Mirek - Been abused for a long time. He finds out about Erastus plan if you leave him to his own devices too much. He decides he likes it and takes it over when Erastus "wimps out".

Artur - He's already had a stint as a crazy rejected guy. If he's not forgiven, and you treated him badly enough, then instead of coming back as a minor boss, he'll have had the time to amass some serious power. The world is not at stake, you're dealing with a psycho stalker.

Eirwen - Treat her badly enough, and flirt with Mirek too much and you've somehow managed to invoke the ire of this otherwise nice lass. I'm imagining you have to do something -really- horrible like not attempt to rescue her when she's going to be raped and tortured or something, and she's looking for revenge against Noemi and Mirek.

Isolde - Erastus envy. He was going to do this to the world, and the world would have probably THANKED him. The hypocrisy is too much. Better that the world should see how vile this solution is. Isolde believes in the necessity Erastus' actions, but she doesn't think the plan should be hailed as heroic. Of course, if -she- was to do it, no one would thank her. As it should be.

Aurel - Loyalty to the government, probably has little to do with Erastus' plans. He's the big bad, but he was initially just following orders and now he can't/won't turn back.

God Kings - Well, their decision to help out Noemi seems a little -too- easy if you ask me... they're up to something.

Etc, etc.

Also, good excuse to design 20+ unique final boss fights and that's just sexy from a design perspective.

Anthony Edward Stark

  • Is that... Alcohol?
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4347
    • View Profile
    • Modern Drunkard Magazine
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2010, 02:12:35 AM »
Well, I wouldn't want it to be dialogue options.  The idea isn't to have random dialogues out of nowhere with obvious yes/no outcomes, but to provide concrete rewards for players who take the time to get to know their PCs.  The general idea is that you'd have this sort of relationship option for the entire cast, but that in the case of preplanned betrayals these provide an opportunity to change their mind/provide a foundation to make their forgiveness plausible. 

So, Mass Effect 2. Or KotOR2. Either way, that's pretty much what you're talking about (which is what I was saying in the first place).

Cmdr_King

  • Strong and Full of Love
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5567
  • Is Gay
    • View Profile
    • CK Blog
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2010, 03:36:03 AM »
No, more along the lines of (light-side) KotOR1.  However, Andy, Excal, and Elfboy haven't played the game so the example would be lost on half the audience or more >.>

Upon further pondering, if we opted to do this for every character, I figure that you'd want some gameplay rewards.  For minor characters who will stick with the party no matter what, this could be something simply like unlocking a sidequest about them.  For betrayers, of course, you don't (or don't permanently) lose them as characters... you could also have them learn a final skill, come back with special equips, that sort of affair, depending on what's appropriate for each.  For the Big Bad... well, I dunno, there.  Lots of things could happen with that.

Djinn: That sounds implausible from a writing perspective, at least without making 20 versions of the game.  With what we have so far, Erastus' subtle manipulation of the quest is really the main plot, so you can't plausibly take that away from him.
If you wanted to set up alternate scenarios for each character as a final-boss oriented betrayal... hmm.  In that scenario something closer to Chrono Trigger, where you can basically 'beat' the game at multiple points and get short endings detailing how this alters history, might be the most workable compromise.  It's something to think about if we want to have an NG+ function.  Beyond that we should really stick with just one big bad, methinks.
CK: She is the female you
Snow: Speaking of Sluts!

<NotMiki> I mean, we're talking life vs. liberty, with the pursuit of happiness providing color commentary.

Sir Donald 3.2

  • Wanting some Kingdom conquering
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2010, 04:04:42 AM »
I've played KoToR1 once through, and I don't think that the final boss Battle would have changed... just the cutscenes associated with that mission.

I'm thinking of a post-game mode from something like a mix of Chrono Cross and Golden Sun:  The Golden Sun part:  A mode where you can reenter late-game dungeons (or bonus dungeons)... and the Chrono Cross part: with any player you cleared the game with in party.  (The only question is how you reconcile multiple playthroughs in your profile.  How does CC do it?)


DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6939
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2010, 04:11:49 AM »
I was thinking the plot plays out more or less the same, and that typically you have to work really hard to get anything other than the Erastus ending (since it's the official ending). And conceivably, this means that Erastus' plan takes shape the same way in each scenario, only he backs out of it right at the end due to Noemi's influence. Of course, this doesn't mean the story is over, now whichever ending you triggered starts its final dungeon/storyline. This means we're writing one story with multiple ending sequences, and hopefully we're clever enough to weave the seeds of these endings into the main story. For example, there might be certain events that you -have- to trigger to get a certain final badguy (e.g. Eirwen -must- not be rescued and ends up broken and bitter to get her ending. If you saved her, like most people would, then obviously she's not going to have a motivation to kill you, assuming we're using that as her BBEG storyline).

I imagine if we make our characters -anything- like real people, it shouldn't be too hard to find reasons for any one of them to be betrayers, even if they aren't all that fleshed out now.

Hmm... interesting idea that occurs to me now. Supposing you avert -all- possible betrayals through Noemi's sheer force of charisma... then you get the 'Noemi is the BBEG ending' where she's actually been manipulating everyone all along, including Erastus. Cheap, but strangely satisfying to have as an option.

I'm entirely cool with the theme of this RPG being 'Trust'. It's a fun theme to work with.

Re: Donald's query on CC
CC has a location where you go and all your PCs from multiple playthroughs are summoned to your party (it's some kind of Space/Time Gate thing, which makes sense with its setting). Not sure we're at the point where we need to talk post-game stuff, but we could always add a Seraphic Gate-like feature to our IAQ for the gameplay-design-lovers who want to eschew all this troublesome 'story' nonsense that keeps mucking up our precious battle system balance.

Sir Donald 3.2

  • Wanting some Kingdom conquering
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #94 on: January 25, 2010, 04:55:31 AM »
Which probably means that once we set up the general world, our next step would be to flesh out the individual characters and find the possible motives & points of betrayal for each character.  Once we do that, we can see where in each story the paths diverge from the Erastus ending.

Also, we'll have to note when multiple people betray you whether some of them can join together in other peoples' factions.  The first one we should look at is who would sign on with Erastus or see him as a direct rival with the same plan.  This could set up a line of succession for the regular scenario.  (Not to say that these same wouldn't join with other factions if they're stronger, they still could...)

In fact, I can see that if you lose everybody (or nearly so), then Samantha can come in (after initially betraying you) and, seeing how things truly are, join Noemi once again.  Inversely if Noemi goes bad, I can also see Samantha (if she survives) coming in as a substitute for Noemi, regardless of the rest of the party makeup.

Actually, would the revelation of Erastus' true motivations involve a boss battle (at the time of the revelation)?  If so, we could have it be a Hopeless Boss Fight at normal levels, but beatable during a NewGame+ (or with extreme grinding) leading to some of the non-Erastus Final Scenarios (including Noemi's).  Some of the alternate Final Scenarios would be independent of Erastus' motivations, though if you don't convert him the alternate Finals could be either sidequests or "Choose your Final" between Erastus and the others; but the Noemi Final Scenario would be accessed only by beating Erastus in that usually Hopeless Boss Fight.  (That way, we keep the "Lead Turns Evil" option out of the reach of all but the most dogged first-time players.)

Cmdr_King

  • Strong and Full of Love
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5567
  • Is Gay
    • View Profile
    • CK Blog
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2010, 04:58:26 AM »
That... lemme put it this way.

I think it's safe to say that we'd all like to avoid blank slate characters.  That is, Noemi isn't meant to be "RobtheStampedella" or "Djinnie", but Noemi.  She, and the rest of the cast, are defined characters.  While the player controls their actions (else it wouldn't be the game), they should not control their thoughts, their personalities.

So, if we wanted a system in which every character was potentially a traitor who ends up the Big Bad, we'd have to make every character one who, at their core, was so self-centered and manipulative that they could, under the right circumstances, betray people they'd walked through hell with.  And for me at least, if we had that as an aspect of every character, I feel like... y'know what?  They'd deserve to die.  Their world should burn.

Now, sure, if these weren't all serious options (Going back to my CT example, the alternate endings are non-canon and, at many points, bend character more than a little, in addition to about half of them being quite obviously jokes), playing around with the characters and making up melodramatic reasons for them to hate the party is cool.  But as a serious, main-line option throughout the game, it's just not the right way to do it.
CK: She is the female you
Snow: Speaking of Sluts!

<NotMiki> I mean, we're talking life vs. liberty, with the pursuit of happiness providing color commentary.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2010, 05:49:59 AM »
Just going to chime in that, for a number of reasons, I am against the potential for any number of betrayals ranking that high. As it stands, imagining that we have a 15 character roster and things play out as general conversation has gone...

Betrays the party: Erastus (unavoidable), Samantha (forgivable?), Artur (forgivable?)
Dies: Eirwen (avertable?), Aurel (unavoidable)

That's about 1/3 of the party that can be lost, for a variety of reasons, to a variety of factors. I think that's the very limit of what we should be looking at, considering that the motivations and reasons for all these things are quite reasonable and well laid out. I really feel like pushing past this really diminishes some themes in the game (friendship/love, for starters) and, at a level, is just annoying for a variety of mechanical reasons.

Also, at the suggestion of Tide, starting an IAQ Bible for terms/characters/plot elements/places/etc in the wiki would be a good idea. I'll start it this week if no one else jumps on it before me.

DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6939
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2010, 06:30:24 AM »
That... lemme put it this way.

I think it's safe to say that we'd all like to avoid blank slate characters.  That is, Noemi isn't meant to be "RobtheStampedella" or "Djinnie", but Noemi.  She, and the rest of the cast, are defined characters.  While the player controls their actions (else it wouldn't be the game), they should not control their thoughts, their personalities.

Just because a player has control over some major choices, it doesn't mean that Noemi no longer has her own personality. Also, I'm leaning towards the 'canon' plotline being the one in which Noemi is nice and charismatic to everyone, but didn't manage to reach Erastus (probably because she's been depending on him for most of her life). Thus, everyone eventually ends up united under Noemi's leadership against Erastus (once they recover from his betrayal). If the player doesn't choose certain options (e.g. rescuing Eirwen), then it's possible to lose some characters forever, but this character will not end up the Final unless Erastus' story has been changed (and he gets redeemed before their big fight). Some characters' key choices might not even make them leave the party unless Erastus' redemption has been triggered. Basically, the plot is pretty stable, but there are a few points where the player has some input and can trigger differences right at the final dungeon.

Quote
So, if we wanted a system in which every character was potentially a traitor who ends up the Big Bad, we'd have to make every character one who, at their core, was so self-centered and manipulative that they could, under the right circumstances, betray people they'd walked through hell with.  And for me at least, if we had that as an aspect of every character, I feel like... y'know what?  They'd deserve to die.  Their world should burn.

You really think that just because something can happen to a person to make them betray another it suddenly makes them all bad people? That's kind of naive. Sure, there are some loyalties that are pretty strong, and under the normal storyline, I doubt anyone would have too strong of a reason to betray their friends. But that's why we should explore it as a theme. Trust, betrayal, paranoia about betrayal... these are things I wish more RPGs actually took a little more seriously. It's not very exciting for me as a player to know that I can always trust my teammates even if they seem off. Having some of these tensions and doubt make for a more intriguing narrative anyway.

Quote
Now, sure, if these weren't all serious options (Going back to my CT example, the alternate endings are non-canon and, at many points, bend character more than a little, in addition to about half of them being quite obviously jokes), playing around with the characters and making up melodramatic reasons for them to hate the party is cool.  But as a serious, main-line option throughout the game, it's just not the right way to do it.

Well, this is also quite a possibility. I imagine if one of our characters is strictly comic relief, it may be a bit difficult to take them seriously as a Final... but we can make that ending one of the more difficult ones to get on a first playthrough and turn it into a humorous option for a second playthrough. Same basic design, but not one to deal with much on a first playthrough. It could be something as easy to implement as:
 "Optional Sidequest: Lyre McMinstrel wants to venture into the Cacophony Woods!"
*Annoying powerful boss appears! Party cannot reasonably kill it on a first playthrough!*
...second playthrough: *Party defeats boss! Noemi is so agitated by how loud and discordant it was that she breaks Lyre McMinstel's harp when he starts playing it for her.*
...Erastus redeemed! But what's this?!
*Lyre McMinstrel leaps out dramatically and swears vengeance for his favorite harp! He and his team of Mighty Morphin Power Minstrels become the final boss!*

You haven't changed Lyre's character at all throughout the main game, but he's got his ending now. Thus, a humorous ending. But for the slightly-more-important PCs (like our mains), I think it would be interesting to really integrate the potential for betrayal into their personalities. It's a lot more realistic and adds some depth to these PCs anyway.

Just going to chime in that, for a number of reasons, I am against the potential for any number of betrayals ranking that high. As it stands, imagining that we have a 15 character roster and things play out as general conversation has gone...

Betrays the party: Erastus (unavoidable), Samantha (forgivable?), Artur (forgivable?)
Dies: Eirwen (avertable?), Aurel (unavoidable)

Wha? Aurel dies now? Since when?

Quote
That's about 1/3 of the party that can be lost, for a variety of reasons, to a variety of factors. I think that's the very limit of what we should be looking at, considering that the motivations and reasons for all these things are quite reasonable and well laid out. I really feel like pushing past this really diminishes some themes in the game (friendship/love, for starters) and, at a level, is just annoying for a variety of mechanical reasons.

I'm pushing more for -all- of the betrayals to be optional. Or... if the betrayal -must- happen, I'd like to see a way to get the PC back before the last dungeon (including Erastus, but that's feeling New Game+ ish).

Quote
Also, at the suggestion of Tide, starting an IAQ Bible for terms/characters/plot elements/places/etc in the wiki would be a good idea. I'll start it this week if no one else jumps on it before me.

Also, you should really start text-dumping the chat logs in here, since I'm getting really left out of the loop these days due to the time difference. This is unacceptable.

Sir Donald 3.2

  • Wanting some Kingdom conquering
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 301
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #98 on: January 25, 2010, 07:04:05 AM »
I know this is going to sound wishy-washy on my part, considering my recent post allowing for a "Noemi Final Scenario" albeit predicated by her winning a Hopeless Boss Fight near endgame; as well as another scenario where Noemi stays good but everybody else bolting for their tents (though not necessarily the same tent):

I think it's safe to say that we'd all like to avoid blank slate characters.  That is, Noemi isn't meant to be "RobtheStampedella" or "Djinnie", but Noemi.  She, and the rest of the cast, are defined characters.  While the player controls their actions (else it wouldn't be the game), they should not control their thoughts, their personalities.

So, if we wanted a system in which every character was potentially a traitor who ends up the Big Bad, we'd have to make every character one who, at their core, was so self-centered and manipulative that they could, under the right circumstances, betray people they'd walked through hell with.

I agree with their personalities being defined.  However, their thoughts (and personalities) would reflect not only their initial personalities but also their experiences throughout the story.  Especially egregious actions in-game (or an egregious trend of actions) should not be totally exempted from this.  Granted, sentients can have their logic vary, especially if their life experiences differ, so I can understand the desire to simplify.  And it should take something major to shock a character off of his/her scripted course.  Merely having a large percentage of friendly fire and/or disparaging comments could be used to have that person quit the quest, but shouldn't be used to make him/her switch sides by itself.  Whether they get picked up by a faction later in the game could depend on whether they would have a game-changing event (or a scripted betrayal) in the first place.

Now, I do grant that not everybody would be able to be a traitor, or at least not for the same reasons/cause as Erastus.  This does not require characters being self-centered/manipulative.  The proposed Samantha is an excellent example of a "traitor" that is not self-centered.  Also, the fact that Erastus is self-centered (or at least an idealist for his goal) and manipulative gives him the power to lie about being concerned enough to be redeemed and, therefore, the final boss.  (Heck, I think of MMXCM's final boss and he fits that pattern.  And he had everybody fooled for a good while.  Zero was, in fact, afraid of something like this after Shadow.)

So I guess I shall backpedal a bit here.  Erastus will probably be enough of a bastard that his betrayal will be unavoidable.  However, his being the final boss may not be set in stone.  Decisions throughout the game could lead to him becoming inferior to someone with a similar plan, who would then replace him as the final boss.  This may be the only way he would "repent" and help you against this new final boss.

So, Erastus (or someone with his motives but possibly "better" than him) would be the final, but others who would side with the Empire or the God Kings against you you may need to get off your trail, one way or another, before facing the threat to the world.  In fact, mandating that Noemi polish up these side-factions before challenging Erastus could make it so, ideally, the party that Erastus fights in the finale would be around the same skill level whether it's a large party in the 50's or a small party in the 60's.

Incidentally, I know it's kind of early to be talking about the mechanics of the final boss battle, but what is our standard party size and would multiple parties be required to either take on the boss or reach him?  Or will it take the resources of all of the mandatory-keep party members to beat the final, boss at normal levels (i.e. DQ4, GS:TLA)?

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: <Untitled IAQ Project>: Round 2: A quip would be clever here, wouldn't it?
« Reply #99 on: January 25, 2010, 07:05:08 AM »
On Betrayal: It... actually isn't that naive a view. If EVERYONE in the world (as represented per the assembled PCs) can be counted on to turn on you under the right circumstances? That's a pretty nasty portrait of the world (since trust can't honestly exist), and frankly, a fairly unrealistic one. There are people in the world you can really rely on, and I feel this deserves to be reflected as well.

Furthermore, well. It really, severely, undermines every other theme in the game (as well as a lot of the characters and their respective motivations). Immensely so.

Besides, generally speaking, how effective are these tensions going to remain if EVERY PC can become a traitor in a real manner? Honestly, I really think we're pushing it with the three considered as is, and that it only works decently well because they are doing it for different reasons, in different way, with different results and are all fairly meaningful. Speaking from a writing perspective, I really doubt that this could be done in a meaningful or effective way. But we might also be talking past each other.

On Aurel: Its come up a few times, and I believe was referenced in the "Samantha" plot idea. There's been a heavy leaning in that direction its seemed.

On chat dumps: I'm making an effort to reference anything of note from chats. Repeated text dumps would be really ugly. >_>

Ninja'd, but it is late, so I'll deal with it if I feel like it.