Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I really want to see and that has been very lacking in the MMO world is extremely customizeable characters. City of Heroes does this right with a very VERY robust character appearance system. Especially for women I would like to see some more realistic options. Every Warrior woman running around with giant jiggling boobs might appeal to lots of people, but it seems almost a gaff. I would just like a slider for body type that can let us play something that doesn't look like they've spent all their gp on gnomish inflateable implants.
|
Aside from all of the body parts and outfit pieces (which I wouldn't feel is right for this game anyway), CoH's customization is pretty stiff actually and I rarely feel like any of the proportions are inside the realm of believable. Certainly not for females.
A system similar to LotRO's, I could settle for, but I'm sure something a little more in-depth would be possible. At any rate, I'd ask that the default models be a little more based in reality than the semi-Grecian ideal used in most games.
Speaking of female proportions, for some reason, I see Golarion elves as being comparatively flat chested. If nothing else, it would be an interesting subversion in my opinion.
When it comes to body sliders, i would love to have it, but i think a lot of games are not implementing them because of performance issues. I think it's easier to render a lot of characters that has the same pre-made shape, than everyone having different shapes. Maybe it depends on the engine, or i could be wrong :)
Having diversity in face appearance and body shape really helps immersion. Usually tho i am fine with lesser focus on character customization if there are many ways to dress your avatar.
|
See, now, I liked DDO's character builder. I just think that it could be taken to the next step by taking out some of the unused/unfavored hair colors/styles and add in a small body portion. Nothing too big, just muscle fat chest waist and height would be nice. I'm tired of seeing my character being the same size as everyone else in every way. Different faces is nice, but it would be better the other ways I mentioned.
Goblin Squad Member
|
When it comes to body sliders, i would love to have it, but i think a lot of games are not implementing them because of performance issues. I think it's easier to render a lot of characters that has the same pre-made shape, than everyone having different shapes. Maybe it depends on the engine, or i could be wrong :)
Having diversity in face appearance and body shape really helps immersion. Usually tho i am fine with lesser focus on character customization if there are many ways to dress your avatar.
As far as I know, it's not really a performance issue unless they make the characters have lots of polygons, and even so, they SHOULD have options to reduce that (probably something else to consider: Scale-ability for all sorts of machines.) I've played quite a few MMOs that have good customization (Mabinogi being one of them. I wish the company didn't get so greedy about the game...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still a fan of having body type tied to stats. So if you choose to have a STR of 20, you are kind of stuck looking like the hulk and weighing 260+ lbs. Of course having a STR of 20 does not preclude you from also having more layers of body over all that muscle...the hulk look would just be the minimal.
I would like to see a combination of the CON, STR, Charisma, and race you select opening or closing sets or ranges of skins, appearances, and bodytypes you are then free to choose from.
On the one hand, I really like that idea. If it's "you have 20 strength, now you have to look like this," not so much, but if it's "you have 20 strength 18 constitution and 8 charisma, so these are different options available to you for appearance," I like that a bit more.
... on the other hand, what if I want my dude to look untypical? A really strong dumb looking guy who is actually quite intelligent, for instance?
|
|
See, now, I liked DDO's character builder. I just think that it could be taken to the next step by taking out some of the unused/unfavored hair colors/styles and add in a small body portion. Nothing too big, just muscle fat chest waist and height would be nice. I'm tired of seeing my character being the same size as everyone else in every way. Different faces is nice, but it would be better the other ways I mentioned.
That would basically be LotRO's character builder. Made by the same company, you will notice. They're almost identical except that one you can change the character's body size to a certain degree.
Now, while I love systems like Champions Online, for some reason I don't think that anything so robust is necessary for PFO (not even counting the outfit parts). Aside from the standard face, hair, colour, etc. options, I'd just like to see a couple of sliders. A little variation goes a long way. On the other hand, looking at games like Champions Online, City of Heroes, or DC Universe, there is a strong (and in my opinion, highly annoying) tendency for most players to max out the height/size of their characters resulting in characters who are made to be realistically average heights appearing as minuscule dwarfs (which would be even more annoying in a game like PFO which is aiming for realism a bit more than these).
A solution for might be to have these size sliders hidden in the creator and randomized. Perhaps with an option to reroll the randomization a few times.
EDIT: OR! Really intriguing idea: Have size be based off of stats! Constitution could affect overall size (higher Con = bigger character), Strength for muscle tone (higher Str = more muscular/less fat), and Dexterity for height or something (higher Dex = shorter character). A little simplistic? Perhaps, but in addition to allowing players some control over these things while cutting down on the cities full of 6'5" humans, it would give an extra layer of veracity to both the stats and appearance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still a fan of having body type tied to stats. ...
I really like this idea.
I'd like to see Str, Con and Cha each tied to their own specific things though:
Str: automatically sets the size of muscles and the frame.
Con: automatically sets how fit they look. Around 12 (maybe 14?) would be enough to have a trim waistline and above that increases muscle definition.
Cha: higher cha means more hairstyles and colors to choose from, maybe also open up some more exotic eye colors.
|
|
Honestly, I don't like Charisma affecting appearance. A lot of people automatically attach it to looks, but it's more force of personality and charm (as evidenced by it's classification as a mental stat, not physical, and being the base of certain spellcasting classes).
Remember that ogre magi, harpies, and medusae (a creature that is so UGLY it turns creatures to stone) all have fairly high Charisma scores, and most demons and devils (including such sexy beasts as the nalfeshnee, glabrezu, purrodaemon, and belier devil) have Charisma scores of 20 or more.
Devourers, linnorms, neothelids... Oh and wouldn't you just love to sleep with the Cha 29 mu spore?
As for a real life human example that shows the disconnect between Charisma and looks: Mitt Romney. For his age and not being in Hollywood, he does look quite handsome. No one likes him though (even if they agree with his politics) because he has the personality of a cardboard cutout.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@L. A. Dubois No one has actually suggested charisma be tied to better looking appearances. The suggestion was for a wider range of choices which is fundamentally different than just "better" looking. The suggestion regarding charisma that has actually been made in this thread is to reflect the fact that people with a more expressive personality will be able to express that personality more experimentally and exotically through their looks than would a rather plain person.
|
|
But it hasn't got anything to do with appearance, so why connect it at all? No matter if that connection is comelier, uglier, or simply weirder.
I'm not really much in favour of appearances that widely deviate from the norm anyway, so perhaps I'm just being a wet blanket here, but I wouldn't like to see more than a couple of subtly out-of-place appearance options (political correctness withstanding, since there would not likely be many from Garund so far north). Such small variations hardly justify being "locked" in the first place. Not to mention that several of the races of Golarion are pretty colourful, so what would be considered "unusual" for an elf or gnome? Dirty blonde hair and brown eyes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, you're the only one to suggest a connection to "comelier" or "uglier". You. That's it. If you really want to have that conversation, go get a mirror.
Beyond the genetic level, I'm going to have to disagree with you: personality has a lot to do with how one grooms themselves and fashion choices, and haircuts and artificial coloring and other adornments. Yes, personality has everything to do with that. How can you honestly say otherwise?
|
|
[strike]I admit that I may an assumption that did not hold true the first time. My reply however was intended to mean that it doesn't matter what adjectives are used to describe it.
I still stand by the rest of what I said - there are no reasonable options that would be worth locking away behind a Charisma score of 12 or higher. Especially if you are going to reference something as mundane as grooming. Aside from games that allow outright monstrous races (the Horde - particularly undead - in WoW, and even they could be said to have decent Charisma scores since most are quite intimidating) grooming and basic hygiene seem to be inherent in MMO player characters.[/strike]
Eh, I gave my thoughts. I'll let GW decide what they think. It isn't really a matter that would keep me from playing the game, either way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Grooming was not mentioned to represent the presence of charisma, nor did I imply that a lack of charisma means no grooming. I spoke of the how, not of the presence or lack thereof. And it's still only one in a list of things I mentioned that are influenced by one's personality.
And intimidation skill is not tied to charisma alone. Half-orcs get a +2 bonus to intimidate without the additional charisma to back it up. It can additionally be raised by feats like skill focus and persuasive. And size difference plays a big role too in determining intimidate checks. Charisma is only one factor that may have a significant role in that. You reference the undead in WoW: for what reason? Are you trying to imply that they have charisma despite being naturally ugly? If so, I'll remind you yet again that nobody here has said anything to the contrary.
Having more personality is about more experimentation, exoticism and variety in how one presents oneself. That's what everyone else is talking about, rather than the self that is being presented - you know, the strawman you keep going after which has emerged from your mind alone.
Ok? To recap: personality = how self is presented, not the self itself that is being presented. And the difference between that and what you have been attacking is not "adjectives". There is a fundamental difference in what you are projecting onto others' opinions that does not come down to semantics.
Seriously, you're going to get nowhere at all with me by putting words in my mouth and assuming I meant something other than what I actually said. I don't know whom you're so accustomed to speaking with that such an approach works for you, but by the end of the day you'll be pulling your hair out trying that with me.
|
|
I mentioned them because of a lack of grooming. One can't really tidy up something that is constantly rotting.
To recap my views: personality (and by extension Charisma) has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with appearance. In any way shape or form. One can be very plain and still able to charm the cream of society, and one can be ...Mitt Romney. This is supported by illusions, spells that affect body but not mind, and so on not affecting Charisma scores. Charisma is 100% a mental attribute with no physical manifestation, just like Intelligence and Wisdom.
I would likewise like to echo you're closing thoughts back in reference to your own manipulation of what was said in your first sentence.
But enough. Like I said, I've expressed my views and see no reason to continue this ultimately pointless debate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Other ideas:
CON opens up skins: 8-11 has access to both normal and "sickly" looking skins. The "sickly" skins would use shading/coloring to look gaunt even if stretched over a muscular frame. 12-14 looses access to the sickly skins, still has access to average. 15-20 is the epitome of heath, instead of having a gaunt coloring, a noticeable sheen could be used.
CHAR also opens up skins which "layer" with CON skins, 8-11 has access to both normal and "imperfect" skins, rashes, horrendous scars, moles, etc. 12-14 looses access to the sickly skins, still has access to average. Scars and other "imperfections" will still be available, but will be more tended...for instance scars might be available, but they would be more narrow and not jagged. 15-20 is approaching what we would call ethereal or angelic, it can be noted by a barely perceptible inner glow (nothing that really effects the environment). This could be balanced by a "dark aura" or "inner darkness" that is automatic at CHAR 8 or below.
STR, as previously mentioned, would be tied to your frame options. I understand someone might want to appear a slim librarian while having a STR 20, but that is what the disguise skill is for...
Disguise skill allows one to alter their appearance (use other skins). The greater the change in the above, the greater the difficulty. Of course, one might just want to change their appearance and might not need to appear to change their stats.
I do understand that Charisma is not determined solely by appearance in RL, instead what this is trying to do is tie appearance to Charisma (not the other way around) so that in our MMO virtual world, it acts as clues to things we be able to "perceive" other ways in the RL.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@L. A. Dubois Mitt Romney has good genetics, plain grooming, dresses uncreatively, but nicely enough...ya, no argument here that he doesn't have much personality. But he's actually a good example of the opposite of the point you're trying to make: that looks can be substituted in place of personality for charisma. You imply he lacks charisma and that he got where he is solely on other merits. I'd suggest to you that he has a lot more charisma than you give him credit for and that his style merely does not connect with yours which explains why you don't see his charisma. There is no question the man has presence, whether is is flamboyant or not. Society simply isn't rational enough to allow a man to get that popular on intellectual merit and principles alone.
But that is a different discussion as to whether charisma has any outward correlation. My point is not that charisma is not purely mental. In fact I agree that it is all about the mind. The point you're missing is that charisma doesn't stay in the mind. It may begin there, but the stronger one's personality, be it flamboyant or be it very straight laced like Romney, that strength will reflect the person's inner world outwardly. The stronger the personality, the stronger the outward reflection. The weaker the personality, the weaker the outward reflection.
|
|
Agreed, one needn't be flamboyant to have presence, but your example was not really accurate. Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill were also exemplars of charisma while being thoroughly plain in appearance and mannerisms (perhaps arguable with Roosevelt). On the other hand, Romney got where he is on looks and luck, winning polls by a statistically insignificant margin. As evidenced by the fact that nearly everyone who has endorsed him has done so very reluctantly, in a "well, at least he's Republican" kind of way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, it is this simple for me...in RL we have ways to detect charisma, everything from how one smells to the tone of their voice, small mannerisms, and yes, most powerful is their personality. We can detect all these things in RL...in an MMO all we have is the visual. My goal here was to encode all that stuff into the visual clues we have available in the MMO to make interactions between people more "real".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They were plain in appearance by our standards because it was expected. But they all did the "plain" look very well. They matched the fashions of the time and very accurately expressed their personal potency through their outward appearance by what the standards of the time permitted.
As Veblen explained in his masterpiece, men's apparel of the era had to be less flamboyant because it was important for wealthy men to outwardly express through their dress and grooming that they were capable of manual work, but were so important that said fashion remained clean and well tailored because they were important enough to have others do the work for them. Women's fashion, on the other hand, was more flamboyant because its purpose was to reflect not their potency, but their husband's or father's, whichever the case may be. A women wearing practical clothing in which one could conceivably do productive labor is not expressing clearly enough that her master is so valuable that he doesn't need her to do labor: he needs to conspicuously consume vicariously through her as well as himself. She is a decoration, and he is a symbol of the masses of laborers subordinate to him - of his pecuniary and social reputability and potence.
In any case, for their times, neither Lincoln, Roosevelt, nor Churchill were plain. The subtle hints of wealth and importance and reputability expressed in their fashion was subtle, and it was supposed to be subtle. Subtlety in fashion reflected the need to spend a lot of their time not being productive but learning frivolous, conspicuously wasteful things like learning the finer points of fashion. Anyone who would have suggested in those times that any of those men appeared plain would have been setting themselves up for a torrential downpour of snobbish, aristocratic mockery.
Garish and flamboyant men's fashion from other world cultures was seen during the Victorian and slightly later eras as primitive. The kings and lords of those "lesser" cultures were flamboyant because they were clearly not yet evolved enough to have so many subordinates doing everything for them that they should have nothing better to do than obsess with fashion trends that are increasingly more and more subtle and thus more and more difficult to fully appreciate.
Having said all that, please keep in mind that it is in the context of what I am suggesting: that being that higher charisma not automatically mean you have to choose from the more flamboyant options, but rather that more such options are available. In other words more charisma amounts to a higher competency at expressing oneself outwardly.
|
|
My usage of "plain" had nothing to do with their clothing. They had very plain facial features, and were largely soft-spoken individuals.
That in mind, what sorts of options do you suggest that would still remain race appropriate? Dyed hair colours? Perhaps a few eccentric hairstyles? How would these translate into races that already are naturally flamboyant like gnomes?
And as for why I'm still participating in this even though I have twice stated that I am done and will not further take part: I have poor Will saves... -_-'
But they say the third time's a charm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I responded to what you said, not what you meant. If you want to talk about plain appearance, my response will reflect that. If you meant to only talk about facial features, despite being repeatedly told nobody else is trying to tie it to that, despite repeated attempts by yourself and everyone else in this thread to steer the topic away from that specific connection, but that's still what you meant to say...do I really need to spell out for you why my response was regarding other aspects of appearance? Really?
As far as your claim that they were soft spoken, or otherwise plain, that is absurd. Churchill is still remembered as one of the greatest orators in history, aka the opposite of soft spoken. Roosevelt's biographer, Burns, refers to him as "a charismatic, handsome and socially active man", not that anybody but you has brought up the connection of charisma to facial features. Lincoln's biographers also attribute a very distinct personality to him that made him stand out in his time.
As far as my suggestion as to how this all translates: I will repeat - number of options, not quality of options (well, perhaps saving some of the more exotic options for higher cha, but mostly just a matter of number.And by exotic, I mean exotic, not pretty). So for your example of gnomes, a less charismatic gnome will have a few choices for appearance. Before your respond, read and understand that last sentence. Note that I did not say that those fewer choices be less appealing or flamboyant. Note how my original suggestion was solely about number of options, not about quality of those options.
Again, I implore you to note the specifics of the points I am making. Please don't come back with another attempt to spin my words into something else. I've said what I meant. No subterfuge. Read what I've written, and respond to that if you still have a shred of will left to do so.
|
|
For me, at least, "appearance" refers primarily to physical characteristics of an individual that can't be changed by a trip to the tailor. I have attributed this meaning to the word because that is what most people seem to mean by it, as well. Additionally, since this discussion, you and I have been the only ones talking - with the momentary exception of Forencith - which hardly counts as "everyone else."
"Soft-spoken" refers to the manner in which one speaks, not to the frequency or amount. As for your remark about Lincoln's biographers, that only supported my argument and had no effect on yours. I've been saying that charisma is tied to personality.
Okay, so a human with a Charisma score of 10 can pick between brown hair and blonde hair? And people with 12 can add in black? Unless you qualify what kind of options are being limited then your restrictions are entirely arbitrary (as opposed to just mostly arbitrary).
As for you, please try to see into what my words imply rather than exactly what they say. Particularly when such implications are of the fairly standard variety. You seem to want me to give a complete legal definition to every single word I use for a frivolous thread comment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was referring to the manner, not frequency. Quote where I said anything about the frequency being a factor. Any statement of mine at all? No, that's what I thought. What is going on? Where are you getting all these points that you are attributing to me?
More hairstyles to choose from as cha goes up, natural colors for any cha score, dyes as score goes up. Contemporary or "normal" hair styles for lower scores, less common styles (note that I am not saying "better" styles. Note it. Think about it. Don't respond until you get it) as the cha score goes up.
As far as wanting me to read what you are implying rather than what you are saying: is that a serious request? You really want this conversation to go that way given your abysmal record so far at actually getting what people are meaning? Really? My answer is: No. You want to communicate with me? do so clearly and accurately. I will read what you write, and you have no one to blame but yourself for writing what you write.
And yes, if Forencith is the only other one to have commented about it, then he technically is "everybody else". I used the term "everybody else" not to illustrate a large number of people outnumbering you (because outnumber does not win an argument or we'd all be eating feces like the 10 trillion flies out there), but to illustrate the absence of anybody at all whatsoever ever at all saying cha score should be tied to comeliness. Despite that complete and total absence of anyone trying to make that connection, you continue to go on about it. Forencith's the only other one who mentioned it. Neither he nor I said it should be tied to comeliness, and neither of us "implied" it either. Move past that.
|
|
I have thrice said that I find this debate pointless, so I will reply to the absolute minimum that my pride can handle:
Replying to one's own question before the asked can reply ("Any statement of mine at all? No, that's what I thought.") is one of the most childish and aggravating habits I encounter. Particularly with such a tone.
As for Forencith: he said little if anything in an attempt to halt or change the course of our conversation.
I long ago dropped the emphasis on comeliness, and have only been expressing my displeasure with any restricted (or extra, depending on point of view) options based on Charisma.
Lastly, with the exception of legal or scientific discussion, every single conversation any two people have involves some degree of reading into implications and making assumptions. Language evolved in such a way that words like "appearance" in the context of an individual refers more to their immutable qualities inherited through genetics than to what clothes they decided to put on that day - unless that is clearly what is at issue, in which case, again there are implications based on the context of the conversation. Our conversation referred to the overall appearance of individuals which generally refers to the more permanent characteristics (eye colour, complexion, shape of the nose and other features) than to the clothing they are attired and yet that was what you immediately assumed I meant when I said that certain individuals had a plain appearance. And before you ask me where it is that you said that:
They were plain in appearance by our standards because it was expected. But they all did the "plain" look very well. They matched the fashions of the time and very accurately expressed their personal potency through their outward appearance by what the standards of the time permitted.
As Veblen explained in his masterpiece, men's apparel of the era had to be less flamboyant because it was important for wealthy men to outwardly express through their dress and grooming that they were capable of manual work, but were so important that said fashion remained clean and well tailored because they were important enough to have others do the work for them. Women's fashion, on the other hand, was more flamboyant because its purpose was to reflect not their potency, but their husband's or father's, whichever the case may be. A women wearing practical clothing in which one could conceivably do productive labor is not expressing clearly enough that her master is so valuable that he doesn't need her to do labor: he needs to conspicuously consume vicariously through her as well as himself. She is a decoration, and he is a symbol of the masses of laborers subordinate to him - of his pecuniary and social reputability and potence.
In any case, for their times, neither Lincoln, Roosevelt, nor Churchill were plain. The subtle hints of wealth and importance and reputability expressed in their fashion was subtle, and it was supposed to be subtle. Subtlety in fashion reflected the need to spend a lot of their time not being productive but learning frivolous, conspicuously wasteful things like learning the finer points of fashion. Anyone who would have suggested in those times that any of those men appeared plain would have been setting themselves up for a torrential downpour of snobbish, aristocratic mockery.
Garish and flamboyant men's fashion from other world cultures was seen during the Victorian and slightly later eras as primitive. The kings and lords of those "lesser" cultures were flamboyant because they were clearly...
I now challenge you to find where I had mentioned clothing, fashion, attire, or anything related up to that point.
I now plan to not open this thread again because it will surely incite me into continuing this pointless, and frankly detrimental debate. Let's hope I don't roll another 1 on my save.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To answer your challenge I respond with another challenge for you: find the part where I said you had mentioned anything about fashion or attire.
I was covering "appearance" in the different forms it takes. The post you quoted, I was addressing attire. Whether you expressly mentioned clothing or not, you did say those three were plain in appearance. I went over in that post how they were not plain in their dress. I gave you one quote about how one was not plain in biological appearance either. In others I also covered how they were not plain in personality or mannerisms either. Your claim to that end, whatever you meant by appearance and mannerisms, was false. And I made that point, only in part by addressing their attire. But nowhere did I say you were specifically talking about fashion.
In summary, I brought up fashion. I didn't say you brought up fashion. Go ahead, re-read my posts. See the part where I say you brought up fashion? I'll let you answer this time since giving the already obvious answer upset you so much last time.
And while this isn't a legal or scientific conversation, you really can do so much better at avoiding all the misunderstandings. Other people communicate clearly here, you can too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Language evolved in such a way that words like "appearance" in the context of an individual refers more to their immutable qualities inherited through genetics than to what clothes they decided to put on that day
First of all: ap·pear·ance
[uh-peer-uhns]noun
1.
the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2.
the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3.
outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4.
Law . the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5.
appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
Next challenge for you: find any dictionary that gives the definition of appearance as "immutable qualities inherited through genetics". I'll make it easy for you: you don't need one that says such qualities are emphasized more than fashion or other aspects of outward appearance, just a definition that includes your point at all will suffice.
- unless that is clearly what is at issue, in which case, again there are implications based on the context of the conversation. Our conversation referred to the overall appearance of individuals which generally refers to the more permanent characteristics (eye colour, complexion, shape of the nose and other features) than to the clothing they are attired and yet that was what you immediately assumed I meant when I said that certain individuals had a plain appearance.
Context? Here's the context: I was talking about hairstyle and additional hair colors that people don't normally come with (ie. dyed hair), as well as exotic eye colors. The context was not general "eye colors, complexions, shape of the nose and other features".
And besides all that, every post of mine has been clear about the specific aspects of appearance to which I was referring. There was no reason to think you had to dig for context. I said what I meant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm afraid i'm a little to tired to follow all the back and forth about the nuances of the definition of CHA, but i have one serious question for the "Stats define looks" proposal. Does artificially limiting the shapes and models dependent on an in game stat, rather than the personal preference of the player, add or take away from that player's ability to play what they want? Does this proposal add, or take away from potential enjoyment, and does it make it more or less flexible (and customizable) a system?
These questions drive at an essential point. What if I want to play a high CON, with decent STR, but who looks wiry and has a sickly pallor? In the ideas being discussed, that's not an option, and My enjoyment/desires to make my a character all my own, to any spec i deem interesting. While on the surface, it might seem cool, but to me it just represents an arbitrary limitation based on narrow expectations. What if i want to play an Elf with a STR 20... does he have to look ridiculously yoked with muscle? What if I want to play an Half Orc with only a STR 12, but a DEX 20... does he have to be some thin armed rail? What if i happen to want to play a thin, fit gymnast looking Wizard? Does he or she have to conform to some arbitrarily waifish look, even though I am choosing to master the arcane?
And finally, does this proposed system add complication to the design and development (and thusly cost) for a commensurate increase in potential enjoyment?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as I had said, I notice that when giving players free reign over such things, we'll end up with a disproportionate number of extremes - particularly of extremely tall characters.
Naturally, race would be taken into account - an elf would rarely (if ever) be a hulking brute, and it would be difficult to get a wispy half-orc. My goal in suggesting the system is to try to reinforce the racial norms, and ideally there would be minimal variation. Even with maxed out Str and Con, an elf would only look like a fit (real-world) actor.
But to answer your concerns, perhaps a combination would be possible. The base build is determined by stats, but have sliders that can be used to have a character appear a couple points higher or lower.
As for complications, there are many MMOs that provide options for things like height and build via slider bars. My suggestion is to merely automate them (now, only to a certain degree) which I don't think would be significantly more troublesome. If anything, it is the first part that would be more difficult. That said, I have no real experience in programming, so GW feel free to correct me. ^^'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@L.A. DuBois
Now, you're personal anecdotes notwithstanding, i'd like to see whether or not there are hard stats on disproportionate extremes. In most games I've played with high levels of customization, thats not really true.
But, its not really important. WHY limit folks? What is gained by saying you can't wear blue if your a dwarf? Nothing, whats the difference between wearing blue and being a skinny dwarf... both are outside of commonly expected norms. Provide a logical reason why limiting character creation in any arbitrary way makes for more fun, and my concerns will be put to rest.
Strong characters are not always yoked, low constitution characters are not always sickly or skinny, uncharismatic souls with zero leadership should still be able to choose purple blue or green hair. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're within the form factor of a racial type, you should be allowed to move the sliders into any combination you see fit. Its all about putting as much freedom into the hands of the players as possible. That's one of the joys of Pathfinder at the table, and it would be a shame to break away from this basic notion.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"he's two hundred and fifty pounds of solid muscle, with short brown hair and an unremarkable face, carrying a stout staff and wearing the same robes as the other sorcerers"
Customizing appearance is fun, sure. Making the appearance of your character informative is important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personaly, I don't see much point in limiting appearance beyond the extremes availble for each race (e.g. no 7ft tall halflings). I did like LOTRO's system where they presented matrix's for hair, eye and skin color that displayed the distribution range for each race/ethnicity. To my mind, this was really more informative for the player rather then restrictive. Nothing stopped you from selecting attributes that were at the very extremes of the matrix to achieve your desired look....but it did give you some valuable information for what was typical for your chosen background. I think the more background information about the campaign setting that you provide to the player during character generation, the better. There are plenty of players who's preference WOULD BE to play a stereo-typical looking X or one with a minor variation but if you don't provide them with the info as to what actually is typical, they are left floundering.
At the same time, I don't really have much issue with players choosing things at the extreme end of stuff for thier race and out of proportion with the general distribution. I don't know about you, but any campaigns I've ever run, adventurers usualy comprise less then .1 percent of the populace. They are exceptional by thier very nature, so I don't really have much problem with thier features being exceptional. I assume that in PFO, even though we mostly won't see them depicted in the game environment, NPC common-folk probably comprise 99.9 percent of the areas we are in..and our player characters are in the extreme minority.
There may be some point to tying stat ratings to availble choices...but frankly I think it's too much bother to be worth worrying about. Most people will probably choose something vaguely appropriate....and I've certainly met people in real life that were far stronger then they appeared or who looked buff but were actualy pushovers..so I don't think it's too neccesary to worry about people choosing options that don't neccesarly reflect thier scores. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing to keep in mind about LOTRO's character customization is that certain things (like blonde hair) simply weren't possible for certain origins. Vanguard had similar restrictions, where all Kojani had an Oriental look. This was quite frustrating to me because the Kojani was the only Human sub-race that could play Sorcerers, and the Elves in Vanguard looked like crap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing to keep in mind about LOTRO's character customization is that certain things (like blonde hair) simply weren't possible for certain origins. Vanguard had similar restrictions, where all Kojani had an Oriental look. This was quite frustrating to me because the Kojani was the only Human sub-race that could play Sorcerers, and the Elves in Vanguard looked like crap.
Yeah well, Tolkiens IP was a bit more restrictive in that regards. Certain things weren't simply unusual or exotic, they plain right didn't happen at all, period. I'm not all that up on Pathfinders source material, but I expect such things are generaly a little bit looser then in Middle Earth.
On that not, one thing I really don't like is race based class restrictions. I don't think Pathfinder actualy has that (at least for non-presitiege classes) so I'm hoping GW won't have any functionality based upon those lines.
There's a difference between genetics and circumstances. I mean halfings probably aren't built to make very effective Barbarians (for example) and it's probably not appropriate for thier given culture...but if one was orphaned out in the wilderness and adopted by a nomadic tribal culture of some other race...it's not really beyond the bounds of concievability that one might become such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, I do understand that removing options is always a bad thing, my support for this stems from my desire to see more complexity in social interactions. All the little cues we have about a person and help us draw initial (and ongoing) impressions in RL are missing from MMOs. In RL we have access to other senses, hearing ones voice, someones smell, their gait and posture, their complection, etc...we use all of these things and more to draw quick conclusions about peoples attributes. In an MMO all we have is the visualisation of ones avatar, so I was arguing for attributes to be codified in some abstract or exaggerated way onto that avatar. I agree it would be making a game full of stereotypes but only when someone has made one or two stats way out of the norm. a person with at stats at 12-13 would look "hero normal". Anyone with stats above or below that would have notable features.
Again, some things like disguise skill could be use to change your avatar for periods of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the game's committed to limiting character names to ones that don't break the immersion, then the same should hold true for ability scores. Do you really want to see a guy running around named Rather Dashing who is the most dapper and fashionable half orc you've ever seen, but only has a charisma score of 6? If you want immersion, that's what this idea is about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the game's committed to limiting character names to ones that don't break the immersion, then the same should hold true for ability scores. Do you really want to see a guy running around named Rather Dashing who is the most dapper and fashionable half orc you've ever seen, but only has a charisma score of 6? If you want immersion, that's what this idea is about.
So a 6 cha half orc can't afford a suit? Charisma is a mental stat, not a physical one. Besides that, I've seen people who are plenty strong who aren't ripped. If you want to be a big burly barbarian, go for it. I'll design my character the way I want em to look, and if other people don't like it....its a game, folks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the game's committed to limiting character names to ones that don't break the immersion, then the same should hold true for ability scores. Do you really want to see a guy running around named Rather Dashing who is the most dapper and fashionable half orc you've ever seen, but only has a charisma score of 6? If you want immersion, that's what this idea is about.So a 6 cha half orc can't afford a suit? Charisma is a mental stat, not a physical one. Besides that, I've seen people who are plenty strong who aren't ripped. If you want to be a big burly barbarian, go for it. I'll design my character the way I want em to look, and if other people don't like it....its a game, folks.
They may be able to afford it, but doesn't it seem out of character to you for someone with no personality and no presence of character to actually want to buy a pricey suit? The player behind the character may indeed want to, but that's where the immersion breaking comes in. Again, before you respond, I'm not suggesting that people with lower charisma have no options or only ugly options - just fewer. So in that context, you question about the suit doesn't make any sense to me.
If we're making the analogy about suits then my suggestion translates as: people with no charisma would only wear a few different types of suits, whereas people with higher charisma would express that through more variety. And I'll repeat, not better options, just more options. But we're not talking about a MallWorld MMO, we're talking about Pathfinder where uncharismatic people may very well end up wearing very fancy armor or robes for very utilitarian reasons. And that's not part of character creation, and that's not what I actually suggested. The reference to "fashionable" is in regards to hairstyles, hair dyes, and artificially colored eyes, which I have repeatedly brought up, not clothing.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "ripped". Do you mean volume, or tone? My suggestion tied muscle volume to strength and tone to constitution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll design my character the way I want em to look, and if other people don't like it....its a game, folks.
And by this logic, why not allow half-orcs to adjust their sliders to make them look like elves? It is after all only limits to physical characteristics and skins that makes the visual appearance difference...and this is just a game. So, if you are going to arbitrarily limit my slider choices based upon the race I choose, why not the attributes I choose? Any negative repercussions you can imagine by removing racial limitations would also be the case for having attribute restrictions absent.
No matter what system is chosen, people will make their characters within the system given to them, but this system with causal limitations will lead to more complex and meaningful social interactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll design my character the way I want em to look, and if other people don't like it....its a game, folks.And by this logic, why not allow half-orcs to adjust their sliders to make them look like elves? It is after all only limits to physical characteristics and skins that makes the visual appearance difference...and this is just a game. So, if you are going to arbitrarily limit my slider choices based upon the race I choose, why not the attributes I choose? Any negative repercussions you can imagine by removing racial limitations would also be the case for having attribute restrictions absent.
No matter what system is chosen, people will make their characters within the system given to them, but this system with causal limitations will lead to more complex and meaningful social interactions.
I have never seen a MMO that tells you "if you are a fighter, you look like X". Why can't a strong guy look normal? A low charisma character can't hire a stylist? Stats are not physical appearance. Highly meaningful social interaction off of stats and how characters look? Its about the story, who the character is and what they do. I look beyond skin deep for characters and story. I sincerely hope this game is far more than cosmetic RP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Immersion. Same reason for the naming rules. Sure it makes sense to look beyond skin deep, but before you go deeper, aren't you going to stop and do a double take if the "skin" level makes no sense at all?
Hmm, maybe this is a better way of explaining the importance of immersion:
Society works by establishing expected norms for everyone to operate within. And I'd rather have an immersive world without a bunch of names like "manboobs" in it.
Or have you changed your mind when it comes to not looking beyond skin deep for names?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Immersion. Same reason for the naming rules. Sure it makes sense to look beyond skin deep, but before you go deeper, aren't you going to stop and do a double take if the "skin" level makes no sense at all?
Hmm, maybe this is a better way of explaining the importance of immersion:
Society works by establishing expected norms for everyone to operate within. And I'd rather have an immersive world without a bunch of names like "manboobs" in it.Or have you changed your mind when it comes to not looking beyond skin deep for names?
And it breaks immersion for someone to hire a tailor, or for a strong guy to not have giant arms? Some of the strongest folks I've met don't have massive arms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And it breaks immersion for someone to hire a tailor, or for a strong guy to not have giant arms? Some of the strongest folks I've met don't have massive arms.
Again you're talking about clothes? Do you read posts before you reply to them? This is like my conversation with Dubois all over again where he was trying over and over to convince me I was talking about facial features rather than just hair styles and exotic colors.
Rather than try to humor you like I did in my previous reply to you, let's just put it this way: you rolled a 1 on your telepathy check. Several times in a row now.
Do a quick ctrl-F and search for clothes or clothing. See who has actually brought that topic up. Then ask yourself why the ... you're addressing these questions to me.
And while your comments about skinny scrawny being as strong as bigger people: if such comments don't break immersion, they at the very least question credibility. In all fairness there is some variation in actual arm thickness as it relates to strength, but absolutely not even close to the extent that it is altogether irrelevant. It may not be a perfect correlation, but contrary to what you are suggesting there is indeed a very strong correlation. The primary reasons for variation from that correlation are related to bodybuilder volume building exercises which don't allow enough reps to properly stimulate cell growth and instead focus on building the volume of fluids around the muscles. Since I doubt there are many professional bodybuilders in Golarion, one would expect to see an even stronger correlation in PFO than in the modern real world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And it breaks immersion for someone to hire a tailor, or for a strong guy to not have giant arms? Some of the strongest folks I've met don't have massive arms.Again you're talking about clothes? Do you read posts before you reply to them? This is like my conversation with Dubois all over again where he was trying over and over to convince me I was talking about facial features rather than just hair styles and exotic colors.
Rather than try to humor you like I did in my previous reply to you, let's just put it this way: you rolled a 1 on your telepathy check. Several times in a row now.
And while your comments about skinny scrawny being as strong as bigger people: if such comments don't break immersion, they at the very least question credibility. In all fairness there is some variation in actual arm thickness as it relates to strength, but absolutely not even close to the extent that it is altogether irrelevant. It may not be a perfect correlation, but contrary to what you are suggesting there is indeed a very strong correlation. The primary reasons for variation from that correlation are related to bodybuilder volume building exercises which don't allow enough reps to properly stimulate cell growth and instead focus on building the volume of fluids around the muscles. Since I doubt there are many professional bodybuilders in Golarion, one would expect to see an even stronger correlation in PFO than in the modern real world.
Easy on the hostility there, mate.
Since I evidently missed what you were talking about, could you put it plainly? So I don't need to make said telepathy check?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cha: higher cha means more hairstyles and colors to choose from, maybe also open up some more exotic eye colors.
This right here. That's all I suggested. I didn't suggest facial appearance, genetics, clothing, or even the number of dwarves pulling your chariot. Just that quoted part. I think it was plain enough the first time.
Is it fair for me to assume the lack of clarity stemmed from my discourse with Dubois? I can certainly see that, but that's a matter of following context through several posts, and I honestly can't blame you for not reading them all with such particular attention. That conversation went on far too long for what was clearly from the start a matter of putting words into another's mouth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blaeringr,
Logicaly your suggestion may make a certain amount of sense. However, I think it will also annoy a rather large portion of PFO's target audience, far more then would actualy find much value in it I suspect.
So it's probably not a particularly good use of limited Development resources.
Many players, particularly role-players are rather particular about thier characters appearance. So restrictions beyond those of race are not likely to be well recieved, even if logical. Furthermore most people will generaly pick something which is roughly in line with thier character anyway...so the amount of gain you will get for the effort is not likely to be significant.
Names can have a high impact on another players experience because they are displayed to everyone. Character statistics are usualy only displayed to the player themselves. So the only persons who immersion is likely to be broken by the bulked out character with the 6 strength is the player of that character themselves. No one else is aware of the characters statistic scores, so no cognitave dissonence.
Finally, unless GW does something cartoonishly absurd with the models, the realitly is that the difference between the bulkiest arm size (for example) and the thinnist is largely visualy indistinguisable on character model at a rendering distance of greater then 10ft on the resolutions which the typical player will play with, even more so if the arm is covered with armor on clothing. The slider stuff is fun to play with and I tend to do it quite a bit myself, but the reality is that most of the nuances there are unnoticable during the normal course of play at typical resolutions and rendering distances.
So as long as GW doesn't make the extremes that are availble on the character models too cartoonishly absurd....I think all you'd really be doing is annoying people and using up resources for something that wouldn't be noticable to 99 percent of the players 99 percent of the time anyway. YMMV.