Greetings from the Lead Writer

[Korak]

Hey folks,

I've been lurking for some time (shame on me) and I just wanted pop in and say how gratifying it is to see folks playing, and moreover enjoying, Prelude. I was Lead Writer on the project, which basically means I was responsible for the text in the game (if not writing it, then editing it.) My apologies for the occasional typo, but as many of you have found out by now, our game has a LOT of freaking text.

In addition, I was the area designer (designed the layout, designed and wrote the characters and quests) for Kellen, the Monastery, and Ironwood. I also did a lot or work on the quests in the Barrier (designed by CP) and the core plot (which Mat conceived).

And last (but I hope not least) I was the voice of the Watcher, which was as blast to do.

I know there’s been some talk about how many people were working on the project. It definitely fluctuated widely during the course our years of development, but there were around 10 seriously involved in one way or another in total. You can find out about us, and see how dashing most of us are (sorry mat ) at:

http://www.zero-sum.com/zerosum.html

You can also get to it by clicking on the zero-sum logo under the links box on the left of the main page. It's a little sneaky. But then, so are we...

Anyway, that's enough jabbering from me. It's great to hear feedback from you all. Keep it up. And a special thanks to Saint Proverbius and all his crew for hosting us and all the support. (A CRPG of the year?!?-- kickass!) Keep spreading the word.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about anything.

Peace,

KORAK

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

So YOU'RE the guy who's responsible for that riddle at the Academy that got me kicked out of it! I have a bone to pick with you, Mister!

 

[Vault Dweller]

What riddle are you talking about? The intelligence test to get in or stone / paper to start training?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Oh, and hi Korak, the mighty lead writer. I've been enjoying your work for the last couple of days instead of doing my own work. There are some really great and imaginative quests out there. I will comment on the overall story when I finish. My only regret is discovering this game way after Christmas.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

What riddle are you talking about? The intelligence test to get in or stone / paper to start training?

*******SPOILERS********

Yup, that one. I was talking to CP about that. The Academy guy contends that The Barrier walls are made of stone because they're harder than paper. I said that a character with a high SPEECH, say 25-30 range, should be able to say something on behalf of the person that answers the question in order to get that person let in to the Academy.

My answer would have been, "A stone wall may slow an advancing army. A peace treaty, which is paper, will stop that advance entirely."

Therefore, paper is harder than stone, especially when it comes to defense.

The main reason I'd like something like that is because having a question like that which basically stops any progress in an area is just poor design. It encourages the reload mentality if you miss the question, because there's no role playing alternative to that "wrong" answer.

There are a few other areas in Prelude to Darkness where the game just stops without much warning if you do something "wrong", and I really hate it when designers do that. Let the player screw up, but don't outright punish them so they have to reload when they get something wrong. Allow them to continue based on their assets, or future assets, rather than just, "HAH! HAH! YOU SCREWED UP! RELOAD IT!"

 

[Boogie With Stu]

Damn you Korak! I'm going to be up late again tonight because of your work. <sigh> Maybe I should go back to playing the crappy single player campaign in NWN - it helped put me right to sleep.

 

[Kyminara]

*******SPOILERS********

Yup, that one. I was talking to CP about that. The Academy guy contends that The Barrier walls are made of stone because they're harder than paper. I said that a character with a high SPEECH, say 25-30 range, should be able to say something on behalf of the person that answers the question in order to get that person let in to the Academy.

My answer would have been, "A stone wall may slow an advancing army. A peace treaty, which is paper, will stop that advance entirely."

Therefore, paper is harder than stone, especially when it comes to defense.

The main reason I'd like something like that is because having a question like that which basically stops any progress in an area is just poor design. It encourages the reload mentality if you miss the question, because there's no role playing alternative to that "wrong" answer.

There are a few other areas in Prelude to Darkness where the game just stops without much warning if you do something "wrong", and I really hate it when designers do that. Let the player screw up, but don't outright punish them so they have to reload when they get something wrong. Allow them to continue based on their assets, or future assets, rather than just, "HAH! HAH! YOU SCREWED UP! RELOAD IT!"

You don't need to gain the Thaumaturgy skill to successfully complete the game. In fact the few quests you get after answering the question right are Completely separate from the main plotlines. For that situation, if you answer the question wrong, you don't get to learn 3 Thaumaturgy spells, but you can still continue with the rest of the game and find other places to learn spells. (They're just saying, "You screwed up. Go do something else.")

There is only one spot in the game I can think of where a player could get stuck with no alternative other then to Reload. That, of course is if you kill a miner in Jerrok. Jerrok is supposed to be the most difficult area of the game, and that is just one example of why it is. I agree that in that situation there should still be Something the player can do after they screw up, but I can't think of a good way to change it yet.

Give the writers a break on this. I think they did a wonderful job for creating many different solutions for almost every quest, and for making the storyline flexible to give the feeling that your characters choices really have an effect on what happens next.

Just my thoughts.

 

[HanoverF]

*******SPOILERS********

You don't need to gain the Thaumaturgy skill to successfully complete the game. In fact the few quests you get after answering the question right are Completely separate from the main plotlines. For that situation, if you answer the question wrong, you don't get to learn 3 Thaumaturgy spells, but you can still continue with the rest of the game and find other places to learn spells. (They're just saying, "You screwed up. Go do something else.")

If your going through the game with a Thaumaturgy character, thats a pretty huge penalty to just 'go do something else'.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Saint_Proverbius, when the dude asked you which is harder there is no reference to the barrier yet. He says it later as an example of player's stupidity. I take it as a joke on some overly 'smart' players. When he asked me I knew that stone is harder but thought that would be too easy and said paper half-expecting to be praised for deep insight, he-he. So I reloaded, no big deal, but I really enjoyed this little moment. From now on I will take zero-sum games more seriously and think first speak later. I mentioned in another post that there is strong sense of logic in the game and few things happen without a reason. Kudos to zero-sum folks and Korak in particular.

And yes, we can argue about qualities of paper representing a document, but I believe it's not what you were asked. Just my 5 cents. By the way, why did you pick paper? Honestly?

So in my opinion, it was a fitting question from a grumpy old man, while when you take the intel test you have an option to go another way if you fail. This whole idea brings an old topic about sense of responibility and reality in games, without turning a game into reload fest. I like how they handle 'death' in combat, I like it a lot. That way I sometimes finished battles with only one man standing. It add a lot to the atmosphere when after a tough combat you are left with only one man standing, not a whole group in perfect health without a dent on their shining armours (that took you only 50 reloads to achieve).

Anyway, I think that there should be some permanent choices, just like in life. Take the bombing quest for instance. I thought it was strange when I delivered food to the temple,
I did not do it for role-playing as my char is not Fry the pizza boy, I did it to milk some early exp points and paid for it later. Excellent idea, by the way. At first I wanted to bitch why I was not warned, why the dev team put it there before I was told about the bombing. Then I realized how _truly_ different this game is from a load of garbidge designed for people with 12-years-old mentality and patrience.

So my advice to the folks out there who still at the beginning, think first, act later.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

And yes, we can argue about qualities of paper representing a document, but I believe it's not what you were asked. Just my 5 cents. By the way, why did you pick paper? Honestly?

Because a simpleton would say, "Rock", but if you think about it, paper overcomes rock in a number of ways like the one I listed. The answer "rock" is just too literal, too obvious.

For example:

• Ever played a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, for example? Paper covers rock.
• Rocks are common too. Anyone can have a rock. Paper is harder to get.
• Treatise are written on paper, it's the media of power.
• The expression, the pen is mightier than the sword. Swords being made from ore, which is a rock.
• An order to mine a mountain or tear down a rock structure can be given on paper.
• A rock jail can bind a person, but it's a paper warrent that put him there. The laws he broke are also typically on paper.

You can go on and on about how paper fells the mighty rock, or cases where the hardness of rock are moot without paper being there to back it up.

Given that we're talking about a scholarly situation, I think the best course of action would be to allow a player to respond to why paper is the right answer.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ever played a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, for example? Paper covers rock

Yes, it covers, it does not break it. The rock is harder.

Paper is harder to get.

You are playing with words. By the same token, rock is harder to lift, to carry, to write on, to eat, to hide, etc.

Treatise are written on paper, it's the media of power

And many of them do not worth shit. Have you been paying attention to the latest events? Peace treaties are only as good as the weapons and armors (rock) behind the written words.

the pen is mightier than the sword

mightier, not harder. Were you asked what's mightier or any other misleading term I would agree with you.

An order to mine a mountain or tear down a rock structure can be given on paper.

A rock jail can bind a person, but it's a paper warrent that put him there. The laws he broke are also typically on paper.


You can go on and on about how paper fells the mighty rock, or cases where the hardness of rock are moot without paper being there to back it up.

Well, I think that every little thing can be argued about no matter how simple or obvious it seems to be. That's what lawyes are for anyway.

But for the sake of a good conversation, let's look into the situation. You walk into a lecture hall to meet the only guy who can train you in the whole valley. He asks you a question about which is harder, not mightier, not better, not what you would pick to defend yourself with, but harder. Somehow I picture the guy to be old and grumpy, he is tired of dealing with stupid farmers' kids, and decided to whip up his own entry you failed-you gone test. Don't forget that thaumaturgy deals with physical quality of items, so you have to have even rudimentary knowledge about that. If on the other hand you were being admitted into some social science academy, they would probably welcome your ability to manupulate words, look for hidden meanings, etc.

Btw, I am not trying to prove you wrong, Saint, I am simply trying to illustarte my point, and I do enjoy a good argument every now and then.

I guess now would be a good time to ask the Lead Writer about his reasons for puting this riddle into the game without exit option.

 

[Korak]

Ok, love to see all the paper vs. rock debate.

A couple of thoughts:

I didn't originally script the Academy, that was my bud David. And as far as I can recollect, it was his riddle, not mine. That said, I thoroughly edited and revised the Academy and did make the decision to keep the riddle in the game. (i.e. I'm not trying to slither out of anything, just give credit where credit is due.)

Personally I found the riddle hilarious. The main reason why I found it hilarious (and completely consistent with the game world-- otherwise I wouldn't keep it-- no freaking star wars or Scooby Doo jokes in prelude!) is that it flips a gaming convention on it's head. In most games, it would be a trick question. In ours, it's literal. Part of our mission was to make a fantasy game world that was a little more grounded than most. And I think this riddle was one (very small) way we went about it.

St. Proverbius is right. There are all sort of metaphorically ways in which you can view paper as "harder" or at least "more powerful," but I think one great thing that this riddle sets up is the very literal mindedness of Thaumaturgist. By and large they're extraordinarily down to earth. It's basically a discipline like hard core science or engineering. Note the spell names, "Harden Armor" etc. They're ain't no poetry or metaphor there (and don't think that we couldn't have come up with some if we wanted it-- tee hee)

St. Proverbius's larger question of forcing reloading is an interesting one. But I can say emphatically that from the very beginning part of our design philosophy is that actions NEED to have consequences. The alternative is a game world where nothing matters. And that just sucks. Now, the game doesn't end if you chose the wrong one. So the debate is actually if the punishment is too harsh. This is what a lot of very difficult design decisions came down to. Sometimes we may have erred on one side, sometimes on the other. But ultimately it's going to be subjective and some people will like it and some won't.

anyway, thems my thoughts

KORAK

 

[Vault Dweller]

Personally I found the riddle hilarious....it flips a gaming convention on it's head. In most games, it would be a trick question. In ours, it's literal. Part of our mission was to make a fantasy game world that was a little more grounded than most

Right on, it is absolutely hilarious once you think about it. And it does fit into the setting perfectly.

St. Proverbius is right

I though there was no right or wrong here

this riddle sets up is the very literal mindedness of Thaumaturgist

That's exactly my point. Hard core science, no poetry. If you wann be a smartass go to the Seminary.

St. Proverbius's larger question of forcing reloading is an interesting one. But I can say emphatically that from the very beginning part of our design philosophy is that actions NEED to have consequences. The alternative is a game world where nothing matters. And that just sucks. Now, the game doesn't end if you chose the wrong one. So the debate is actually if the punishment is too harsh. This is what a lot of very difficult design decisions came down to. Sometimes we may have erred on one side, sometimes on the other. But ultimately it's going to be subjective and some people will like it and some won't.

I agree with you, Korak. Actions do need to have consequences. I hate reloading on account of poor design (which I have not seen in Prelude yet), but I will take it as a punishment for being a smartass in a mage school or for trying to remove obviously enchanted necklace.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yes, it covers, it does not break it. The rock is harder.

The end result is the person with paper triumphs over the rock.

You are playing with words. By the same token, rock is harder to lift, to carry, to write on, to eat, to hide, etc.

1.) Rock is harder to lift - Depends on the amount of rock and the amount of paper.
2.) Rock is harder to carry - Also depends on the amount, but also you can leave a note for someone else to carry the rock on a piece of paper.
3.) Rock is harder to write on - Depends on what you're using to write on and the rock.
4.) To eat - Depends on the size and smoothness of the rock.
5.) To hide - Depends on the size of the rock again.

And many of them do not worth shit. Have you been paying attention to the latest events? Peace treaties are only as good as the weapons and armors (rock) behind the written words.

If you want to talk about the entropic analogy with diplomacy, that's fine. However, the tactics, the orders, and everything else that moves those rocks around is also written and conveyed on paper.

mightier, not harder. Were you asked what's mightier or any other misleading term I would agree with you.

Okay, here's a fun one. Break a phone book over your knee, now try it with limestone. The phone book will give with the stress of you hammering it with a knee or some other blunt object, while the rock will crack and break. However, you can slice a phonebook in half with a utility knife but you can't do this with the rock.

This is along the same lines of the Willow Tree vs. Oak Tree puzzle. Which is stronger? Oak is a considered a hard wood, but because of this factor, it fails under tension faster than the willow.

They react to forces differently, therefore, their hardness is relative to the forces that act on them.

Don't forget that thaumaturgy deals with physical quality of items, so you have to have even rudimentary knowledge about that.

If we're talking about the physical nature, ask an engineer to think about that problem. A good engineer would probably say, "It depends", because of what I pointed out above.

Personally I found the riddle hilarious. The main reason why I found it hilarious (and completely consistent with the game world-- otherwise I wouldn't keep it-- no freaking star wars or Scooby Doo jokes in prelude!) is that it flips a gaming convention on it's head. In most games, it would be a trick question. In ours, it's literal. Part of our mission was to make a fantasy game world that was a little more grounded than most. And I think this riddle was one (very small) way we went about it.

You can do "funny" without punishing the player by locking him totally out of an area. Like I said, have the guy throw his fit and call you stupid and every other demeaning name in the book. After he rants, allow the player that has the appropriate skills to say, "Okay, here's why paper is harder, or better, or fells rock."

St. Proverbius is right. There are all sort of metaphorically ways in which you can view paper as "harder" or at least "more powerful," but I think one great thing that this riddle sets up is the very literal mindedness of Thaumaturgist. By and large they're extraordinarily down to earth. It's basically a discipline like hard core science or engineering. Note the spell names, "Harden Armor" etc. They're ain't no poetry or metaphor there (and don't think that we couldn't have come up with some if we wanted it-- tee hee)

It goes beyond metaphysical, but metaphysical can play a role in the answer.

Like I said, take a ball hammer to a phonebook. Then take a ball hammer to a rock the same size. You might dent the hell out of the phonebook, but it won't crack and break the way a rock will. Furthermore, the phonebook will still serve it's purpose after you beat the crap out of it. If the rock served a purpose before you beat the crap out of it with the ball hammer, it certainly won't serve that purpose afterwards because it'll be in tiny bits.

Furthermore, there are many rocks which aren't hard at all and can be scratched with your fingernail. Talc is a rock, and it doesn't take anything to break it, scratch it, grind it, or smash it.

St. Proverbius's larger question of forcing reloading is an interesting one. But I can say emphatically that from the very beginning part of our design philosophy is that actions NEED to have consequences. The alternative is a game world where nothing matters. And that just sucks.

Coming back when you can explain your answer is a logical consequence. It's instand gratification versus something you have to work towards. It's instant training versus, "Now I must go and work on my SPEECH until I can convince him I'm right." or "I must track down a reference for this." or some other delay, assuming you don't already have the skill.

Now, the game doesn't end if you chose the wrong one. So the debate is actually if the punishment is too harsh. This is what a lot of very difficult design decisions came down to. Sometimes we may have erred on one side, sometimes on the other. But ultimately it's going to be subjective and some people will like it and some won't.

The game may not end, but I know there are people who have picked the wrong answer and just reloaded. This is because you're talkng about one of the best training facilities in the game, here, that you get locked out of based on a subjective, from either a metaphysical or physical perspective, question.

 

[Vault Dweller]

SP,

Well, you are definitely entitled to have your own opinion without other people trying to convince you that you are wrong all the time. In fact that what role-playing is all about, to have your own opinion how to play your character, and if your character wants to argue his case in the Academy, then that's his choice and an option should have been provided.

Well, enough about rock vs paper. There is another element of this discussion that I'm interested in which is... how shall I put it....a balance between a sense of responsibility for your action and conserquences thereof and forcing a player to reload 'cause something terrible happens every now and then. I am not sure it came out ok, but you got the idea.

So let's leave the riddle aside, and discuss the enchanted necklace quest. I'm sure you tried to remove it just to see what happenes, right? I sure did. So what's your take on that and what would you do if you were a DM?

 

[Kyminara]

So let's leave the riddle aside, and discuss the enchanted necklace quest. I'm sure you tried to remove it just to see what happenes, right? I sure did. So what's your take on that and what would you do if you were a DM?

I'd give the players a chance to put the necklace back on before she died.
The necklace is obviously enchanted, but it's not easy to see what the enchantment is. It appeared to me that it was simply keeping her asleep. Yeah, I should have realised there was more to it than that, but there was nothing else to show the necklace might kill her. If I encountered the same situation in another game, I'd take the necklace off again for the same reason I got the riddle right at the academy. I chose the most obvious solution first. Perhaps a higher Medical skill or Literacy and Lore skill would give you a warning about the true nature of her condition, but if not, there should be some way to discover that taking the necklace off is a Bad idea.

just my thoughts

 

[Vault Dweller]

The necklace is obviously enchanted, but it's not easy to see what the enchantment is

Here is an analogy to illustrate my point. You are in real world, you are exploring, find a small house in the middle of nowhere. Inside is a man in a coma, some apparatus is attached to his vein, you have some doctor skills but you can't make what the apparatus does. Do you try to disconnect the apparatus to see whether the man wake up? If you do, here is an advice, man, stay away from the hospitals

there should be some way to discover that taking the necklace off is a Bad idea.

It's always a bad idea to mess with somebody else's enchantments :shock:

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

So let's leave the riddle aside, and discuss the enchanted necklace quest. I'm sure you tried to remove it just to see what happenes, right? I sure did. So what's your take on that and what would you do if you were a DM?

Actually, that was one of the other things I didn't like. It would have been much better if, rather than the GAME OVER bit, that she started choking and you put the necklace back on her before she died.

I really don't like the idea of clicking on an option and being presented with a GAME OVER screen. Now, if I run in to a pack of Dweller Fighters naked and unarmed, and die.. I can accept that. It's not the dying that gets me. It's the dying or losing out on a whole area just by clicking on the wrong dialogue choice.

Here is an analogy to illustrate my point. You are in real world, you are exploring, find a small house in the middle of nowhere. Inside is a man in a coma, some apparatus is attached to his vein, you have some doctor skills but you can't make what the apparatus does. Do you try to disconnect the apparatus to see whether the man wake up? If you do, here is an advice, man, stay away from the hospitals

Is this apparatus as easy to put back on as a necklace is?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I really don't like the idea of clicking on an option and being presented with a GAME OVER screen

I agree with that. What's your idea on being somewhat responsible for your actions, what is an appopriate punishment for a player for acting before thinking? By the way, Ilike how similar situation was handled in P:T ( skeletons in enchanted armour)

Is this apparatus as easy to put back on as a necklace is?

Player examines the apparatus again and find on/off button he did not notice before

 

[Korak]

SP,
In fact that what role-playing is all about, to have your own opinion how to play your character, and if your character wants to argue his case in the Academy, then that's his choice and an option should have been provided.

This is true. And we certainly tried to put in as many options as possible. Of course, in the end you can't anticipate every choice the player would want to make and account for it. But I'd argue we did a better job than most games, where the choices are "Be nice" or "Fight!"

SP--
I don't have time to go point here, and I'm not sure I it'd do any good, anyway. I think we just fundamentally disagree. You obviously didn't like the moment, but as we saw on the posting list, some people did. I like it, and as a designer it was my bet that the moment would please more people than it would piss off. If I was wrong about that it was a bad call on my part.

But on to the larger issue:

SP,
.a balance between a sense of responsibility for your action and consequences thereof and forcing a player to reload 'cause something terrible happens every now and then. I am not sure it came out ok, but you got the idea.

First off. Totally! It's absolutely an issue of balance. You know there are some games where you don't load at all. MMRPGs. And they drive me crazy, because I feel like nothing I do matters at all. Even death. Oops gotta walk 40 miles and pick up my corpse. On the other side games that make you reload every five minutes are infuriating.

My own personal view is games that force you to reload a ton are annoying, but games where you can get yourself into situations that you might want to reload from are good. But yeah, it's all a matter of balance.

Now about the necklace quest (which I am wholly responsible for). First off, if you have high Thaum and you examine the necklace you do get a warning.

Now in the specific case of the necklace I think the argument can be that people couldn't be expected to know of the consequences of their action. But that's in fact why I like it. It's surprising. There's a logic to it-- it's not random, but it's something that the player might not see coming. I don't really buy into the notion that things like that are somehow unfair. I mean, sure, if every quest had things you could do to which would have completely unanticipatable terrible results, that'd get pretty annoying pretty fast... But in moderation, I like surprises like this, even catastrophic ones. I'm not trying to torture players here, on the contrary, I'm trying to keep it interesting...

Make sense?

In terms of quests in general, we made a point to make it very difficult (although it IS possible) to do things that make finishing the game impossible. But in terms of side quests, there are definitely things you can do to make finishing ones impossible. This to me is very important in games, the player should be able to make mistakes and dire ones, sometimes even with the best of intentions. I hate it how many games there where it is impossible to screw up a quest. I want there to be danger of failure when I'm playing, and not just from getting killed by monsters.

Now there are TONs of sidequests, you don't have to reload if one gets cut off, but if you want to be thorough, or see what happens, then go for it.

peace

KORAK

 

[Korak]

[
Actually, that was one of the other things I didn't like. It would have been much better if, rather than the GAME OVER bit, that she started choking and you put the necklace back on her before she died.

Hmmm... I'd make your success in getting the necklace back on dependent on the leader's speed and dex. That'd be pretty cool...

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Player examines the apparatus again and find on/off button he did not notice before

Well, here's the thing. You were asking me how I'd DM situations like this. The simple answer is, I wouldn't.

Things like the Academy and the necklace thing are about like a DM saying, "Okay, you're at a fork in the dungeon. You can go East or West here." The players vote and say, "We'll go East." Then you, the DM say, "Okay, everyone dies. Give me your character sheets."

That's basically how this is. You have a choice to make and if you pick the wrong one, you get utterly screwed with no way to unscrew yourself.

This is true. And we certainly tried to put in as many options as possible. Of course, in the end you can't anticipate every choice the player would want to make and account for it.

Um.. What? You can't anticipate a player clicking on a dialogue choice or option you scripted?

But I'd argue we did a better job than most games, where the choices are "Be nice" or "Fight!"

I'm sorry, did I miss the choices after removing the necklace or getting booted out of the Academy?

I don't have time to go point here, and I'm not sure I it'd do any good, anyway. I think we just fundamentally disagree. You obviously didn't like the moment, but as we saw on the posting list, some people did. I like it, and as a designer it was my bet that the moment would please more people than it would piss off. If I was wrong about that it was a bad call on my part.

You're damned straight I didn't like the moment. How else was I supposed to react to it?

"Oh, HAHAHA! I just picked the wrong answer and got screwed out of the best area to train my Thaumaturgist! Now I have a useless party member until I can train her to be something else! Ho-ho! You nutty scriptors, you got me there!"

You have two choices if you pick wrong there. You can either deal with it, like I did and have a useless thaumaturgist tagging along, or you can reload. Forcing a player to reload because of a joke in the game is poor design.

Why is it poor? That's simple, you have an event in the game that's a 50/50 shot depending on what they're thinking about the riddle. If they miss it, they'll typically reload. Reloading is a break in the immersiveness of the game. It's a disruption in flow. You've gone from enjoying your place in the setting to something that arbitarily makes you deal with the fact you're no longer dealing with the game world to being knocked on the head that it's a computer program. It's bad karma, baby!

First off. Totally! It's absolutely an issue of balance. You know there are some games where you don't load at all. MMRPGs. And they drive me crazy, because I feel like nothing I do matters at all. Even death. Oops gotta walk 40 miles and pick up my corpse. On the other side games that make you reload every five minutes are infuriating.

There's a difference between loading because you couldn't win a fight to loading because you clicked a wrong dialogue choice.

Now about the necklace quest (which I am wholly responsible for). First off, if you have high Thaum and you examine the necklace you do get a warning.

Irony: I might not have had so low a thaumaturgy skill if I hadn't been kicked out of the Academy in the first place.

Even then, you're depending on a player either to not click that thing, or that they have a high thaumaturgist there to tell them not to do it. Either it boils down to forcing a skil on a party, ignoring the option for whatever reason, or reloading.

Now in the specific case of the necklace I think the argument can be that people couldn't be expected to know of the consequences of their action. But that's in fact why I like it. It's surprising. There's a logic to it-- it's not random, but it's something that the player might not see coming.

No, you're right here. Most players don't see things like clicking a choice and being given a GAME OVER screen coming. They're not surprised because it's a good thing, they're surprised because it's annoying.

But in moderation, I like surprises like this, even catastrophic ones. I'm not trying to torture players here, on the contrary, I'm trying to keep it interesting...

The load screen is not interesting.

This to me is very important in games, the player should be able to make mistakes and dire ones, sometimes even with the best of intentions. I hate it how many games there where it is impossible to screw up a quest. I want there to be danger of failure when I'm playing, and not just from getting killed by monsters.

I'm all for allowing the player to screw up. However, to screw up with little to no warning, or to pick a choice that screws them out of something incredibly beneficial with no chance at fixing the problem just isn't cool.

I have skills that should be used in these events, skills that would end up making the game much better. Why aren't I given a chance to use them? I had a 33 SPEECH when I did the Academy thing. I had a 38 SPEECH when I did the Necklace thing. Why couldn't I talk the professor in to understanding why that choice was made? Why couldn't I bluff the guards or the husband that I had nothing to do with the death?

I have a group of thugs with me, with mean, nasty axe and sword skills. Why couldn't I threaten to rough up the old geezer with the riddle? Why couldn't I fight the guardians rather than just seeing a GAME OVER screen?

I had a decent enough thaumaturgy skill to see that it was enchanted. Why couldn't I present that evidence that the necklace was enchanted? It's not like it's much of a leap for anyone to know that the lady was "sick" and that it happened after the necklace was put on her. If need be, even allow the speaker of the party to jump in and back up the testimony with a little silver tonguing.

That's what good role playing is all about. A good DM would never kill off a party for removing a necklace. especially if they didn't have any warning that removing it would kill her. "What? You want to remove it? Okay, you're all dead. Hand in your character sheets." It's just not done for a very good reason.

Likewise, a good DM wouldn't say, "Okay, the King asks you, 'Would you build a fortress in the forest or on a cliff?', well? What? You guys picked forest? Hah! Wrong answer, the king throws you out. Okay, you'll have to walk to the next town to find something to do." This is also not done for a very good reason.

That reason is, it sucks. I'm not sure what your argument even is at this point. Neither of those furthers gameplay in the least. In fact, it hinders gameplay. Tthey're bullshit choices because they screw the player. Those aren't options at all, because the consequences are so severe, so you might as well not even have them.

Since Vault Dweller brought up the DM thing, how long would you play with a DM that did things like that? Most certainly you wouldn't play with him very long, because he's a jerk.

Don't get me wrong here. I really like the game. However, those two things really, really detract from what is otherwise a very well done game in terms of scripting and design. If anything needs rescripting to flesh out the game better that I've seen in the game, it's those two things.

 

[WildBill]

reply to SP

I agree with mr proverbius.........

It's great for actions to have consequences. I concur wholeheartedly with the zero sum guys on this. Dungeonsiege, for example, is a game which purports to be an rpg, yet you mind as well not engage in dialogues because there are no consequences to anything you say.

But on the other hand, having severe consequences fall out of relatively unassuming dialogue choices is not a great feature. Sure, let the player make some serious choices that have fallout, but make sure that they know what they are doing in advance. In other words, present a strong indication that a serious choice is to be made.

An example might be a moral dilemma which is posed to the player - moral dilemmas are commonly understood to be events requiring choices that have consequences. In the case of removing the necklace, you can force a moral dilemma by presenting the player with more facts. (do we try to remove this given the dire warning on the inscription, or do we leave her in this apparent coma?)

The characters should know something about the potential consequences in order to decide. If the player has to decide on the basis of 0 information, it isn't role playing. It's craps.

 

[Kyminara]

Here is an analogy to illustrate my point. You are in real world, you are exploring, find a small house in the middle of nowhere. Inside is a man in a coma, some apparatus is attached to his vein, you have some doctor skills but you can't make what the apparatus does. Do you try to disconnect the apparatus to see whether the man wake up? If you do, here is an advice, man, stay away from the hospitals

This is a completely different situation. In the neckleace quest, we didn't just walk in and find a girl in a coma, we talked with people and learned that she fell into the coma after recieving the necklace. Dialog with the other people suggests that the necklace caused her condition. In your example, I highly doubt the medical apparatus was attached before the man was in a coma. Here's another analogy. If your doctor gives you medicine for a cold, and then you start getting severe headaches, do you keep taking the medicine because you're afraid you might get a rash or something when you stop?

It's always a bad idea to mess with somebody else's enchantments

Even when you remove the enchantment the Right way, you're still messing with someone else's enchantment. In fact, you are messing with it much more than simply taking off the the enchanted item.

My own personal view is games that force you to reload a ton are annoying, but games where you can get yourself into situations that you might want to reload from are good. But yeah, it's all a matter of balance.

Now about the necklace quest (which I am wholly responsible for). First off, if you have high Thaum and you examine the necklace you do get a warning.

Now in the specific case of the necklace I think the argument can be that people couldn't be expected to know of the consequences of their action. But that's in fact why I like it. It's surprising. There's a logic to it-- it's not random, but it's something that the player might not see coming. I don't really buy into the notion that things like that are somehow unfair. I mean, sure, if every quest had things you could do to which would have completely unanticipatable terrible results, that'd get pretty annoying pretty fast... But in moderation, I like surprises like this, even catastrophic ones. I'm not trying to torture players here, on the contrary, I'm trying to keep it interesting...

I agree with you whole-heartedly on all of this, Korak. I found the quest very interesting. Also, since Thaumaturgy skill would give warnings to the player, the outcome isn't Completely unpredictable. I still think there should be a chance to put the necklace back on before she dies, though. That instant GAME OVER screen is sort of annoying.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, well, well, it's just like an old joke. Everybody has a good point, and right in his/her own way. On one hand, there should be consequences, any game gets boring if you can restart a conversation tree again like with the crazy guy in Kellen. On the other hand, judging by strong response, the dev team should have been more flexible about the only chance to learn T-spells, and done the consequences thingy to side quests or branches only, like they did with temple bombing and food delivery.

I can agree with SP opinion on the Academy riddle. Well, I can agree that it's too important to subject it to 50/50 chance. I can agree that 'game over' was a bit overdone too, did not bother me personally that much, but I would rather find myself thrown in jail and then escape thus becoming a hunted crminal in Ironwood. Something like that.

Having said that I want to mention that the riddle was a simple question with one right answer, the trick is that there was no trick. The necklace quest, well, only a fool would touch an enchanted necklace that instantly put a woman in a coma without investigating all circumstances.

Yes, SP, I brought up the DM thing, but I would not compare go East or West to this quest. I would compare it to a thief attempting to open/disarm a trapped chest in a room full of dead bodies. It's thief choice to take a risk without knowing the nature of the trap or whether his skills are sufficient. You fail the roll you might die, period. The player takes the risk, and if he did and dies as a result, he should not blame a DM for a deadly trap, but himself. Otherwise the campaign turns into a bed time story, a 34 hp thief attempts to disarm a trap, fails, and gets hit by a level 1 magic missile for 2 points of damage. The party hugs the thief saying "you dare-devil, you."

The player has to pick east or west to proceed, but the player does not have to remove a necklace. So while I agree with you in general, SP, pick a better example to prove your point in the future.

Well, while we are on the subject, what do you guys think of the bombing quest? Mind you, I simply interested in your opinions. I do not imply that I like everything and I am right, and you guys are jerks. Not at all. There are things that Prelude done differently, and I would like to discuss them at this forum. Why don't each of you give an example of how you would handle it or how you would like to see it done. (the riddle, the necklace, the bombing) That would give me and much more importantly the dev team a better idea on where exactly you stand.
.