Vault Dweller said:
I'm not taking some successful examples, I'm taking extreme successful examples: Talleyrand, Polo, Burton, etc. Don't forget we are talking about specific situations in games, not some general abstract. We can rate these situations where a simple "let me pass through this gate" conversation is 1 and a very complex "stop this evil dude plans" is 10. I think that by supplying some 10-rated examples I can demonstrate that a highly skilled individual (an equivalent of a game hero) can theoretically handle anything from 1 to 10 in a believable manner.
And while those examples are no doubt very good, you're forgetting there were situations where the people you are using as an example did not managed to succeed in their use of diplomacy. For instance, Napoleon failed to convince Alexander I of Russia in joining him against the British. Talleyrand was sent to Great Britain in an effort to try and stop war, but failed; and there are accounts of his diplomacy decreasing in power and effectiveness after Napoleon's defeat in 1815. In Somali, Burton was powerless as he and his group could not avoid combat against some tribes (and he was terribly scared as a consequence of one of those). I seem to recall something about him being ultimately powerless in dealing with some other tribe and having been captured. Burton was also expelled from Oxford University for having challenged an associate to a duel (uh-oh, violence ahoy, matey!), after the associate had mocked his moustache (!). Apparently, he didn't felt like bribing, convincing, dissuading, etc, the poor fellow. His belligerent attitude in Damascus made it so he was transfered to Trieste. And how many times was Marco Polo faced with skirmishes in his travels, skirmishes which were unavoidable by diplomatic means?
And how many events were they unable to bypass diplomatically which are unknown to us?
Its undeniable that they were very good, but its also undeniable that no matter how good they were, certain events had a scope and background which escaped their power, and their diplomatic prowess was ineffective (or in the case of Burton, considered that violence had its place, sometimes above diplomacy).
Your unsuccessful examples, on the other hand, serve no purpose as they don’t dispute my facts but merely show that some people lack diplomatic skills which I never disputed.
Your examples show people who are experts at diplomacy, yet, also failed to use it in some events. Which obviously, does not mean they lacked diplomatic skills, as anyone can see.
If these and my prev examples don't prove that everything is possible, then there is nothing else I can say.
On a similar note, I'd also say that, if after my simple presentation of situations where the diplomatic skills were insufficient even for those expertly wielding it, you still believe that diplomacy is possible to work in
every situation, then i don't think there's much of a point to the conversation, because quite frankly its becoming a bore to point something which is clear to pretty much everyone except you.
We are already making assumptions that "someone who is highly proficient with a certain skill would be able to use it to overcome all obstacles that depended on said skill" although "this might not be the case every time". If anything, the way of violence is less believable because realistically you can't kill everyone who stands in your way.
Which doesn't stop people from being violent. And realistically, it would appear one also can't diplomatically handle everyone and everything that stands in their way, specially taken the examples above into consideration. If you want to look at violence realistically, however, its a method which, due to its ease of use and the quick ending it brings to a problem, would make sense being used more often. Although as i said, ultimately none of the situations is the "be all, end all" in terms of problem solving. Violence is just likely to be more present.
That doesn't qualify, sorry. I didn't change my opinion, neither "on the fly", neither in the long run. In fact, i maintained my position - and still do - but it was you who assumed that i had changed it.
Sorry, but it does.
First of all, what mission? Who gave it to him or why did he decide to do it?
The mission, self given, was to wipe out the taint of Bhaal by killing every other living Bhaalspawn, then after he made sure every last one of them was dead, to kill himself trough a ritual suicide so the taint would disappear forever.
Does he belong to any monastery or group?
He used to belong to the Five. And had his own monastic order, and none of his associates, wheter soldiers or monks, betray him, and fight to the death for him.
How exactly does his mission interfere with the PC?
Read above.
Is there anyone he cares about, would listen to?
In the past he took the advice of the Five and Melissan, but later cut those ties, not listening to anyone else.
Who delivers his supplies? Is there a town/settlement nearby?
IIRC, one of the people that handled it was Saemon Havarian, the rest were simple merchants, or even the monks.
Also, his monastery is located inside Amkethran.
Answer these questions if you want to play.
I was already "playing" before you made these questions, thank you very much; which honestly, seem more like an excuse for me to remind you of the game so you don't have to replay it. Of course the situation may be that you didn't know them at all. But if you did, then there wasn't a point in asking me the questions. Well, except making me lose my time, that is.
Regardless, in the end, yes, the monk's example does fit what i've been saying.
What percentage of your problems you resolved through violence?
A small one. Curiously, in circumstances where diplomatic attempts were fruitless.
Do you have a habit of shooting at cops who stop you for speeding? How many government officials have you personally beaten for various offences? Creditors? Insurance agents? Tax collectors? Lawyers? Seriously. Just think about it, people are forced to deal with problems all the time: ranging from family issues to banks taking over your house. If what you say is true, our cities would look like something from the wild west movies. The fact that they don’t prove you wrong.
That's assuming violence is confined to gun-using, which, given your above speech, would be a correct assumption. In the same way diplomacy isn't strict use of rethoric, violence also isn't confined to shooting everything.
However, tell me how many people the world over enter emergency hospital services everyday with wounds due to robbery, brawls, police brutality, gang violence and domestic violence. Tell me how many people are the targets of phsycological violence, or of aggravated physical assaults. Tell me how many people have died in recent wars, terrorist attacks, at the hand of the death squads in Brazilian slums 'favelas', at the hand of neo-nazi groups, at the hand of radical religious groups, at the hand of racial discrimination groups or isolated racist incidents, at the hand of crossfire caused by open violence between criminal groups, at the hand of war criminals enacting mass exterminations, etc.
Hell, just an online search for "increase in violence" is usually enough to see what i'm talking of. Articles like
this examplify my point.
If she could learn all that, so could my character, if the game was designed differently. As it was, the focus of the game was killing stuff, so no learning was necessary.
Copout. Thats like saying that, since the focus of a Torment was not on killing stuff, then there was no need for combat.
You can spend years complaining about how something could have been designed differently, yet, that doesn't mean that a different design applied to it would work better for the game.
Under different circumstances, the PC could have learned of the five, and then decided what approach to take: charge or try to figure things out first.
No doubt. Other people would know of the Five, and in fact, the PC is somewhat warned of the Five when in Suldanessalar. Storywise, the Five's massive slaughter is already heard of troughout Faerun before Amelyssan speaks of it. Of course, the non-violent, diplomatic approach would only work if the PC was aware of certain things, things which the PC had no way of knowing.
It wouldn't have taken a genius to understand that there is somebody else running the show, learn how she manipulated the Five, and counteract it with manipulations of your own.
Again, you're assuming that the PC would have anything that was worth negotiating over with the Five, which wasn't the case.
A person who is already listening to somebody, will listen to somebody else is the words are right.
Or if the person cares.
For me to see how good it backs up your arguments.
Like that would stop you from dismissing it.
Anyway let's see. I presented the religious zealot who only cared for his mission. He can have many roles. He can be a 'hired' assassin who believes his particualr god gave him the duty to kill you (or everyone in a given group of people, and you're part of the group) and will not be dissuaded of his goal. He could be the leader of an invading army, and while going medieval on a village you're located in, manages to corner you into a tight spot. His only single thought is to kill everyone he can.
I also presented the monk example, which unsurprisingly, despite being an example of what i talked, was dismissed.
Superior? Hardly. The one that better serves the role-playing part of a game? Possibly.
"The one that better serves the role-playing part of a game", according to you, of course. Being given diplomatic opoortunities in every situation doesn't make the game, or its roleplaying, necessarily better. The Chronicles of Ny, as an example, will not be less of a roleplaying game simply because there are events in which you won't have diplomacy resources. Just as Fallout wouldn't have been less of a roleplaying game if the Master didn't changed his mind according to what you told him.
That’s not the point, the point is that you could use diplomacy a lot if you wanted to, and with some easy tweaks you could have played the entire game without attacking anybody. Would that have made it a terrible and unrealistic game? No. That’s the point.
The point is while it possibily wouldn't have made Torment a terrible and unrealistic game, there's no way of accurately stating it would have been better just because of it, either.
A single skill, maybe. A group of skills, i.e. thieving, diplomatic, scientific, etc should be good enough to get you through a game. They wouldn’t have the same opportunities, but the same success level, i.e. a fighter would fight his way through a gate, a thief would pick the lock during the night or steal a pass, a diplomat would talk his way through or talk to somebody who’d give him the pass, etc.
I believe that a certain amount of skills when used together can be used to successfully move forward in a game, but that doesn't mean that one certain skill, or variation of the same, will have an opportunity of being used in all situations.
As soon as it makes sense. Work on answering my initial point of your fallacy in assuming game premise credibility could be used in comparison with game skill credibility, then post a well formulated question, then you'll get an answer.
No, you’re using an unsupported belief that violence is everyone’s favourite, and often the only solution, and thus should be the only proper way through a game.
Oh, my. Lets try and puzzle trough this blatant piece of bullshit, shall we?
First, i never said violence was everyone's favourite solution. This was what i said, regarding violence:
Role-Player said:
there should be some ways to solve possible confrontations without violence, but this isn't necessary to exist in all situations possibly involving combat, because gamewise, there are things which likely can only be solved in one way, or are beyond are possibilities. Violence is a common, almost universal means to an end. Its also the easiest one to do, hence its abundance in these kinds of situations.
Violence is unavoidable in some measure
Even if your statement above was relevant, it still missed the point that violence is a means to an end which is used much more often than negotiation; and that more people are likely to engage in violent acts than in peaceful ones.
The point is, however, that NPCs will always be much more eager to use violence instead of letting themselves be convinced. And most NPCs, under these cirsumstances, are likely to be better at using their sword instead of their diplomacy.
I didn't disputed that violence would be useless in some situations; rather, that violence, as a means to an end, is used more often than diplomacy, even in game worlds, by NPCs.
Second, yes, i did say violence was often the only solution - in situations involving violent outcomes:
Role-Player said:
This isn't particularly difficult to grasp; solving a potentially violent situation involves factors ranging from who you're dealing with, to getting what the person wants. There can arise situations where no solution - aside violence - is possible.
The point is still the same as in the previous posts - there should be some ways to solve possible confrontations without violence, but this isn't necessary to exist in all situations possibly involving combat, because gamewise, there are things which likely can only be solved in one way, or are beyond are possibilities.
And third, i never stated that violence, on its own, or when in context of your previous assumptions, should be "the only proper way trough a game":
Role-Player said:
If i can avoid combat in some situations, i'll be glad, as it does more than most CRPGs these days; i don't need a would-be pacifist path. That i can't avoid combat in some situations is good in some measure, as it means the gameworld - and more importantly, its NPCs - have minds of their own.
It wasn't a question of solving everything only trough combat, it was a point of why should diplomatic solutions be included in every single situation (which was what you questioned, after all).
And i'd suggest you pay more attention with what you write - i never posed a problem to there being a diplomatic path in the game, as your last sentence suggests. Merely, i questioned the validity of your question as to why there wasn't a diplomatic option at every turn.
Unfortunately, you claimed i said those things, so now it's your job to back them up. Only problem is, you can't.
Your lying has been caught, debunked, and shoveled to the ground with the rest of the usual brahmin crap. So, can i expect in the future the same level of stupidity regarding what i say, or are you quite trough with it? Its getting tiresome having to reprint my points every few posts because of your insistence in being an ass.
Good one, ok, consider PST an exception then, as every rule has them. Honestly, I just can’t use PST and “bad design†in one sentence. As for ToEE, it’s a hack-n-slash game, just like the IWDs, the Diablos, etc. They were never designed to be fully blown RPGs like Fallout and Arcanum.
I'm sure we could get into more time-consuming discourse as to what makes a full-blown CRPG or no, but instead, i'll just ask why it (ToEE or other similar RPGs) shouldn't be considered for this argument. Why is it that your definition cannot be used in ToEE, which regardless of being a so-called "full-blown" RPG or not, is still an CRPG? Also, does that mean what is considered bad design in a full-blown CRPG is likely to not be bad design for a non-full-blown CRPG?
Also, let's use another example, let's bring up Baldur's Gate. Like in Torment, i'm also usually forced, on some situations, to do things the only way. Knowing you, you'll say that indeed, Baldur's Gate is badly designed, while Torment isn't. However, i'd like for you to back up why one isn't badly designed and the other is. If its not much of a hassle, of course. I'm curious to see why.
On a curious note, i also find it funny how you place ToEE and IWD on the same level as Diablo. Good show.
Doesn’t count. That wasn’t a situation to be resolved, and it didn’t require any skills to use. I wasn’t forced to do anything, that’s how the game starts.
Merely making the point that the definition is liable to be misused due to it being too strict.
I didn’t say chain of command, I said chain as in chain with weak links. It could take different forms, naturally. As for your comment, I don’t believe that there could be a perfect organization. People are flawed, that’s their nature. The flaws expand tenfold in an organization, affecting everyone. Remember Compaq?
Yes, people are flawed and when those flaws can be taken advantage of, the results can be damaging if those who are taken advantage of are cogs on on a larger clockwork. However, its not impossible to accept that under some ocasions, even groups, or parts of a group (specially key individuals), might be above diplomatic means.
