[Feedback] Drath's report - Roleplay, story, immersion (part 1) - 16/12/20 12:30 AM
UI, Controls, QoL : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Roleplay, Story, Immersion : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Mechanisms : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Naturally, I'm well aware that I'm playing a video game. And there are many conventions of the genre that I willingly accept (characters have Hit Points, I manage my companions' inventories, etc). But for a video game's story to work, for immersion to be maintained, what happens in the game must make sense within the world where it takes place.
Currently, a number of elements are very problematic. At best, they make it hard to understand what is supposedly happening in the game. At worst, they make the game self-contradictory. They are strong and frequent breakers of immersion.
Where is the camp ?
Is it a mobile camp, that we set up where we are ? Or is it a static camp, and if so where is it located exactly ?
If it is a mobile camp, we should not be able to rest everywhere. Time passes while we rest and we may be found by guards or roaming monsters. And the camp scenery should change. And not all followers should be there at all times. And we cannot have a low-strength party send all of Roah's barrels to camp. Etc.
If it is a static camp, we should be able to walk to the camp normally from the main map. Also, when in a dungeon, we might backtrack to our camp with fast-travel (or, better, backtrack to a waypoint point first) but on the way back, we should probably only be able to reappear at the entrance (or at the nearest waypoint point). Again, time passes and guards might have been replaced.
At the moment, the fact that we can sleep anywhere tends to indicate that it is a mobile camp. But the fact that folks come celebrate at our camp tends to indicate that it is somewhere specific. (Side note : why do we still sleep in the wild when there's a Druid Grove nearby, with caves that are probably safer and drier than the wilderness ?)
Please don't give us a Schrödinger camp that is both mobile and static, and thus is whatever you need it to be at any given time. That is what the current camp is, and it really, really doesn't work. You can't have both. Make a choice, any choice, figure out an explanation for everything that stems from that choice, and then be consistent.
How does time work ? It doesn't pass, except it does.
On the one hand, the story and the dialogues clearly involve time ("we don't have time for rest", "two days have past, still no symptoms").
On the other hand, the rest of the game categorically refuses to take time into account. There are no day/night cycles, no guard shifts and dead sentinels renewals, not the slightest difference between long and short rest (the latter of which takes 0 rounds). I cannot tell how many days have passed since the crash.
Unsurprisingly, the two positions are not compatible. You have invested so much (in writing, voice acting, etc) on "time is a thing" that you can hardly change that. Also, you would have difficulty justifying a world where times does not pass. So, please, figure out ways to account for time, find the mechanisms, and deliver the explanations in-game.
Are waypoints part of the game world ? They are, but only for the players of the game.
On the one hand, you made Gale have a line about them, so they exist in the game world.
On the other hand, only the characters controlled by us players can use them. The tieflings don't consider this option to travel to Baldur's Gate. The goblins don't raise so much as an eyebrow when we casually we walk out of one, right next to them. The portals lie scattered in the wild when such a means of transportation would have major historical, economic and geopolitical implications.
Again, that doesn't work. Having them exist in-universe has world-building implications, which are a problem now that you have started writing a story that ignores their existence.
It would be a lot simpler to use them strictly as a quality-of-life feature that is not part of the world. So players can use them but it is implied that the characters walked the whole way in the game world. And then, don't have a character give us a tutorial about them in-game : this breaks the fourth wall. And you already have another way to give players tutorials.
The ability to initiate conversations using a companion leads to characterisation issues.
Am I playing as the PC and interacting with independent companions or am I in full control of a party of adventurers ?
On the one hand, you have created companions with their own personalities. Sometimes my PC will be forced to talk to them, sometimes they will interject in a conversation that my PC initiated with an NPC, sometimes they approve/disapprove of what my PC says. So they are established as their own individuals. Pretty clear.
On the other hand, if I initiate a conversation using a companion, I can have them select lines that are completely out of character (like Wyll approving of Kagha, Lae'zel licking Crusher's foot, etc).
That hurts immersion.
What character am I playing ? According to cutscenes, it is not clear.
Sometimes, I initiate a conversation with an NPC using a companion and then this companion is talking in the cutscene. But sometimes it is my PC talking in the cutscene.
This is extremely confusing and immersion breaking. Either go with my choice of character all the time, or say that my PC is talking all the time. Breaking your own rules at arbitrary times is not good.
What character am I supposed to play as ? According to the mechanisms, it is not clear.
The current mechanism for skill checks in conversations (which I comment on below) incentivises me to conduct almost every conversation with the party's most charismatic character, which may well not be my PC.
But, if I initiate a conversation using a companion instead of the PC, I often lose an opportunity to gain approval/disapproval for my PC. (Weirdly though, I still see approvals sometimes.) This mechanism incentivise me to conduct almost every conversation with the PC.
So the game mechanisms are currently self-contradictory. It seems that "you are your PC" is the way to play intended by the writing. And this is how we would play in a TT RPG, which you said you wanted to make the game feel like. But at least one mechanism goes completely against this. The game mechanisms should be aligned with the writing and the intended behaviour, not clash against it.
Quite possibly, using a companion to initiate a conversation should not be possible at all.
On-the-fly vs scripted : cutscenes and battles.
Many cutscenes and most battles are dynamically created : they go with what led to them. This ranges from conversations cutscenes (well ... most of them, see above) to the "connect the transponder" cutscene at the end of the prologue. But some of them are pre-rendered, and occasionally lead to absurd situations, which breaks immersion.
Examples :
- In the prologue, after the first imps, when going to the deck with only the PC, Lae'zel still appears in the cutscene, even though I left her downstairs. After the cinematics, she's downstairs again !
- In the battle of the Druid Grove gate, when I trigger the cutscene, I'm on top of the hill with one character to the left. When the battle starts, a goblin archer is in melee range, ready for the shove. I'm not sure how he sneaked there but it was a very, very stupid decision on his part ...
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Equally well-written story paths.
The various story paths should all be equally motivated, credible, and rewarding from a story point of view. Otherwise, we are not given a real choice.
For now, one story path I can really see is the clear and standard "Tadpole-removal path" that we start on. It sounds fine.
The only other path that I could glimpse, but that can imagine, is the "Tadpole-control path". The "siding with goblins subpath", in the goblins-vs-grove arc, seems to be a component of the "Tadpole-control path", and it really isn't good.
My hope is that this is because the game is still at very early stage, and that the "siding with goblins subpath" that we are currently proposed, and which you seem to equate with "choosing Evil" in a Community Update, is just a draft. It is possible that this path wasn't ready, but since you had publicly encouraged us to go evil, whatever there was already for this so-called "Evil path" had to be included for the EA release. Or any variant of that scenario. I hope much better motivations for this subpath are developed.
Reasons to have any interest in the Absolute.
My characters have heard of no reason why they could want to join the cult of the Absolute, either genuinely or as a self-serving characters planning to use the cult.
We can somewhat gather that there's a link between the Absolute and our tadpoles. We seem to be True Souls pawns-to-be who failed to be properly created, because of the Githyanki attack. The Absolute then sent Edowin to destroy the botched puppets (or weapons) that we now are.
So, at the moment, I don't see why the characters could want to get any more involved with the Absolute, on their own initiative.
Note : as a player, I can think of reasons. The characters could want to go kick the Absolute' ass and force Her to remove the tadpoles or explain how to control them. But the characters don't seem to voice anything like that. I believe that, as a player, I'm not supposed to try to rationalise what happens in the world or make up explanations to fill gaps.
Better reasons to join the goblins and destroy the grove.
We want a solution to the life-threatening tadpole problem, be it removal or control. We quickly find that there is no solution with the goblins, if we ever learned there could be one. And we most likely have realised this before we are offered to join. However, there might be a solution with Halsin, who we have most likely heard of. So we certainly cannot join the goblins on that ground : this will likely result in killing a potential solution, which is possibly our only remaining solution. So it's not just that there is no good reason to join the goblins, there is also an overwhelmingly good reason to prevent them from raiding the Grove.
If we just seek to fight the battle on the side that would pay us better, Zevlor promises to give us whatever he can get, Minthara promises only the gratitude of the Absolute : see above.
Conclusion : ... I see no reason to join the goblins. Saving Halsin and protecting the grove sounds like the only reasonable choice.
Better reasons to go to the Moonrise Tower.
If we have sided with the grove : it's pretty clear. Halsin can't help us, but he points to a possible solution at the Moonrise Tower.
If we have sided with the goblins : well ... we spend a night with Minthara, she's immediately very in love with us (how cute !), then she wants to kill us, but she refrains from doing it if we ask her nicely (how kind ... typical Drow), so she says we must go to Moonrise tower. Why ? Er ... because the Absolute wants us to stop breathing and being alive and all that, so ... maybe we can go there, have a cup of tea with a representative of the Absolute and talk things out in a civilised fashion ? Or something. I confess, I really didn't understand that part.
Telling our own story, to some extent.
Letting players have control over the story of their characters.
Please make sure that not too many major paths or quests are locked behind skill check bottlenecks.
Of course, to a very good extent, not every party can expect to solve every situation in the same way, and experience the exact same adventure. Especially in a tabletop setting where players would play the campaign only once. You have your vision of how this adventure should be experienced. But players should be able to enjoy the video game in more than one way. Some players will be happy to go with the dice : they may attempt to persuade X to do Y, and if it fails, they'll go with it. Other players will want to call the beats.
Could you add an option in the options menu to modify (increase or decrease) the DC of skill checks that have long-term effects in the game (story paths, camp followers, meet-again characters, etc) ?
Note that while I say "some players" and "other players", they may well be the same people. In my first playthrough, I'll be happy to take the story as it comes. In my second one, I'll be happy to discover how different some things could go when some dice land a bit differently and I make different decisions. But after some more playthroughs, I will want to tell my story : "this PC will have this personality, make these choices, succeed at this check but fail at that check, etc".
Companions should approve/disapprove my choices, not how the dice landed.
If I tried to defuse a situation, I think that conflict-averse companions should realistically approve of the attempt. The fact that the dice rolled unfavourably is out of the character's control : if the target is stubborn and choose to fight, they are the cause, not me.
Choosing how to handle encounters.
We should get XP when resolving an encounter without a fight.
It should be surviving the encounter that counts, not the method employed. If fights are the only method rewarded with XP, it makes it less appealing to talk our way out.
Obviously, players shouldn't be able to exploit this to get double XP. If the potential enemies leave (like Gimblebock's group), no problem. If they stay (like the goblin ambushers in the Blighted Village), their killing should give 0 XP.
Roleplay, Story, Immersion : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.
Mechanisms : Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
IMMERSION, CREDIBILITY AND UNDERSTANDABILITY
Naturally, I'm well aware that I'm playing a video game. And there are many conventions of the genre that I willingly accept (characters have Hit Points, I manage my companions' inventories, etc). But for a video game's story to work, for immersion to be maintained, what happens in the game must make sense within the world where it takes place.
Currently, a number of elements are very problematic. At best, they make it hard to understand what is supposedly happening in the game. At worst, they make the game self-contradictory. They are strong and frequent breakers of immersion.
Where is the camp ?
Is it a mobile camp, that we set up where we are ? Or is it a static camp, and if so where is it located exactly ?
If it is a mobile camp, we should not be able to rest everywhere. Time passes while we rest and we may be found by guards or roaming monsters. And the camp scenery should change. And not all followers should be there at all times. And we cannot have a low-strength party send all of Roah's barrels to camp. Etc.
If it is a static camp, we should be able to walk to the camp normally from the main map. Also, when in a dungeon, we might backtrack to our camp with fast-travel (or, better, backtrack to a waypoint point first) but on the way back, we should probably only be able to reappear at the entrance (or at the nearest waypoint point). Again, time passes and guards might have been replaced.
At the moment, the fact that we can sleep anywhere tends to indicate that it is a mobile camp. But the fact that folks come celebrate at our camp tends to indicate that it is somewhere specific. (Side note : why do we still sleep in the wild when there's a Druid Grove nearby, with caves that are probably safer and drier than the wilderness ?)
Please don't give us a Schrödinger camp that is both mobile and static, and thus is whatever you need it to be at any given time. That is what the current camp is, and it really, really doesn't work. You can't have both. Make a choice, any choice, figure out an explanation for everything that stems from that choice, and then be consistent.
How does time work ? It doesn't pass, except it does.
On the one hand, the story and the dialogues clearly involve time ("we don't have time for rest", "two days have past, still no symptoms").
On the other hand, the rest of the game categorically refuses to take time into account. There are no day/night cycles, no guard shifts and dead sentinels renewals, not the slightest difference between long and short rest (the latter of which takes 0 rounds). I cannot tell how many days have passed since the crash.
Unsurprisingly, the two positions are not compatible. You have invested so much (in writing, voice acting, etc) on "time is a thing" that you can hardly change that. Also, you would have difficulty justifying a world where times does not pass. So, please, figure out ways to account for time, find the mechanisms, and deliver the explanations in-game.
Are waypoints part of the game world ? They are, but only for the players of the game.
On the one hand, you made Gale have a line about them, so they exist in the game world.
On the other hand, only the characters controlled by us players can use them. The tieflings don't consider this option to travel to Baldur's Gate. The goblins don't raise so much as an eyebrow when we casually we walk out of one, right next to them. The portals lie scattered in the wild when such a means of transportation would have major historical, economic and geopolitical implications.
Again, that doesn't work. Having them exist in-universe has world-building implications, which are a problem now that you have started writing a story that ignores their existence.
It would be a lot simpler to use them strictly as a quality-of-life feature that is not part of the world. So players can use them but it is implied that the characters walked the whole way in the game world. And then, don't have a character give us a tutorial about them in-game : this breaks the fourth wall. And you already have another way to give players tutorials.
The ability to initiate conversations using a companion leads to characterisation issues.
Am I playing as the PC and interacting with independent companions or am I in full control of a party of adventurers ?
On the one hand, you have created companions with their own personalities. Sometimes my PC will be forced to talk to them, sometimes they will interject in a conversation that my PC initiated with an NPC, sometimes they approve/disapprove of what my PC says. So they are established as their own individuals. Pretty clear.
On the other hand, if I initiate a conversation using a companion, I can have them select lines that are completely out of character (like Wyll approving of Kagha, Lae'zel licking Crusher's foot, etc).
That hurts immersion.
What character am I playing ? According to cutscenes, it is not clear.
Sometimes, I initiate a conversation with an NPC using a companion and then this companion is talking in the cutscene. But sometimes it is my PC talking in the cutscene.
This is extremely confusing and immersion breaking. Either go with my choice of character all the time, or say that my PC is talking all the time. Breaking your own rules at arbitrary times is not good.
What character am I supposed to play as ? According to the mechanisms, it is not clear.
The current mechanism for skill checks in conversations (which I comment on below) incentivises me to conduct almost every conversation with the party's most charismatic character, which may well not be my PC.
But, if I initiate a conversation using a companion instead of the PC, I often lose an opportunity to gain approval/disapproval for my PC. (Weirdly though, I still see approvals sometimes.) This mechanism incentivise me to conduct almost every conversation with the PC.
So the game mechanisms are currently self-contradictory. It seems that "you are your PC" is the way to play intended by the writing. And this is how we would play in a TT RPG, which you said you wanted to make the game feel like. But at least one mechanism goes completely against this. The game mechanisms should be aligned with the writing and the intended behaviour, not clash against it.
Quite possibly, using a companion to initiate a conversation should not be possible at all.
On-the-fly vs scripted : cutscenes and battles.
Many cutscenes and most battles are dynamically created : they go with what led to them. This ranges from conversations cutscenes (well ... most of them, see above) to the "connect the transponder" cutscene at the end of the prologue. But some of them are pre-rendered, and occasionally lead to absurd situations, which breaks immersion.
Examples :
- In the prologue, after the first imps, when going to the deck with only the PC, Lae'zel still appears in the cutscene, even though I left her downstairs. After the cinematics, she's downstairs again !
- In the battle of the Druid Grove gate, when I trigger the cutscene, I'm on top of the hill with one character to the left. When the battle starts, a goblin archer is in melee range, ready for the shove. I'm not sure how he sneaked there but it was a very, very stupid decision on his part ...
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
OUR CHOICES THROUGH STORY
Equally well-written story paths.
The various story paths should all be equally motivated, credible, and rewarding from a story point of view. Otherwise, we are not given a real choice.
For now, one story path I can really see is the clear and standard "Tadpole-removal path" that we start on. It sounds fine.
The only other path that I could glimpse, but that can imagine, is the "Tadpole-control path". The "siding with goblins subpath", in the goblins-vs-grove arc, seems to be a component of the "Tadpole-control path", and it really isn't good.
My hope is that this is because the game is still at very early stage, and that the "siding with goblins subpath" that we are currently proposed, and which you seem to equate with "choosing Evil" in a Community Update, is just a draft. It is possible that this path wasn't ready, but since you had publicly encouraged us to go evil, whatever there was already for this so-called "Evil path" had to be included for the EA release. Or any variant of that scenario. I hope much better motivations for this subpath are developed.
Reasons to have any interest in the Absolute.
My characters have heard of no reason why they could want to join the cult of the Absolute, either genuinely or as a self-serving characters planning to use the cult.
We can somewhat gather that there's a link between the Absolute and our tadpoles. We seem to be True Souls pawns-to-be who failed to be properly created, because of the Githyanki attack. The Absolute then sent Edowin to destroy the botched puppets (or weapons) that we now are.
So, at the moment, I don't see why the characters could want to get any more involved with the Absolute, on their own initiative.
Note : as a player, I can think of reasons. The characters could want to go kick the Absolute' ass and force Her to remove the tadpoles or explain how to control them. But the characters don't seem to voice anything like that. I believe that, as a player, I'm not supposed to try to rationalise what happens in the world or make up explanations to fill gaps.
Better reasons to join the goblins and destroy the grove.
We want a solution to the life-threatening tadpole problem, be it removal or control. We quickly find that there is no solution with the goblins, if we ever learned there could be one. And we most likely have realised this before we are offered to join. However, there might be a solution with Halsin, who we have most likely heard of. So we certainly cannot join the goblins on that ground : this will likely result in killing a potential solution, which is possibly our only remaining solution. So it's not just that there is no good reason to join the goblins, there is also an overwhelmingly good reason to prevent them from raiding the Grove.
If we just seek to fight the battle on the side that would pay us better, Zevlor promises to give us whatever he can get, Minthara promises only the gratitude of the Absolute : see above.
Conclusion : ... I see no reason to join the goblins. Saving Halsin and protecting the grove sounds like the only reasonable choice.
Better reasons to go to the Moonrise Tower.
If we have sided with the grove : it's pretty clear. Halsin can't help us, but he points to a possible solution at the Moonrise Tower.
If we have sided with the goblins : well ... we spend a night with Minthara, she's immediately very in love with us (how cute !), then she wants to kill us, but she refrains from doing it if we ask her nicely (how kind ... typical Drow), so she says we must go to Moonrise tower. Why ? Er ... because the Absolute wants us to stop breathing and being alive and all that, so ... maybe we can go there, have a cup of tea with a representative of the Absolute and talk things out in a civilised fashion ? Or something. I confess, I really didn't understand that part.
Telling our own story, to some extent.
Letting players have control over the story of their characters.
Please make sure that not too many major paths or quests are locked behind skill check bottlenecks.
Of course, to a very good extent, not every party can expect to solve every situation in the same way, and experience the exact same adventure. Especially in a tabletop setting where players would play the campaign only once. You have your vision of how this adventure should be experienced. But players should be able to enjoy the video game in more than one way. Some players will be happy to go with the dice : they may attempt to persuade X to do Y, and if it fails, they'll go with it. Other players will want to call the beats.
Could you add an option in the options menu to modify (increase or decrease) the DC of skill checks that have long-term effects in the game (story paths, camp followers, meet-again characters, etc) ?
Note that while I say "some players" and "other players", they may well be the same people. In my first playthrough, I'll be happy to take the story as it comes. In my second one, I'll be happy to discover how different some things could go when some dice land a bit differently and I make different decisions. But after some more playthroughs, I will want to tell my story : "this PC will have this personality, make these choices, succeed at this check but fail at that check, etc".
Companions should approve/disapprove my choices, not how the dice landed.
If I tried to defuse a situation, I think that conflict-averse companions should realistically approve of the attempt. The fact that the dice rolled unfavourably is out of the character's control : if the target is stubborn and choose to fight, they are the cause, not me.
Choosing how to handle encounters.
We should get XP when resolving an encounter without a fight.
It should be surviving the encounter that counts, not the method employed. If fights are the only method rewarded with XP, it makes it less appealing to talk our way out.
Obviously, players shouldn't be able to exploit this to get double XP. If the potential enemies leave (like Gimblebock's group), no problem. If they stay (like the goblin ambushers in the Blighted Village), their killing should give 0 XP.