Also, I’m home sick today so I slapped together some moodboards instead of doing anything productive:
Nothing productive??? Those moodboards look amazing to me! I love them!
OMG THEY’RE GORGEOUS
So that means the gods will be more than simple plot advancement devices? That is awesome, officialy awesome.
Regardless of gods, I want to listen to your opinion on the CoG games guidelines where a curious statement appeared; it was something along the lines : you must ensure that the stats are equal/have the same consistency/(or something like this, I read that a long time ago), which in my opinion is unrealistic.
A clear example is needed : if I write about medieval times, intelligence shouldn’t be equal to strength because people we’re constantly toiling the fields, fighting etc while there were few jobs that required learning and int(elligence).
In modern times, we are looking for intelligence rather than strength, so these stats shouldn’t be equal
I’d love to hear your opinion
Ahh, thank you so much!! I actually love them way more than I expected to lol, I wish there were more characters for me to make more moodboards of! I’ve gotten addicted haha!
Thank you! And yes, how the gods/God figure into your story and how they’re handled will vary depending on your choices and whatnot!
Hmm, from a baseline point, I don’t think your example of using intelligence in medieval times (or more so than strength in modern times) is unrealistic at all–and also doesn’t really apply to CoG/HG games. What if you’re playing as a medieval noble, scholar, or monk, like many of the nobility games here on the forums? Or what if you’re playing as a Martian construction worker, a football player, or a superhero in a modern game? I don’t think we can say that in a societal sense that traits were ever “unequal” or more valued over the other: a person could still be intelligent even when they weren’t educated in the past–able to think critically and problem-solve–and a person in modern times could very much rely on their physical strength over intelligence to do things.
(TL;DR I think “stats” or personality traits are timeless and can be used in any situation in the hands of a capable writer: a caveman can still have an intelligence stat, and it would still make sense.)
Regardless, I don’t think that’s really what CoG’s guidelines mean: from my memory, they mean that if you have a stat, the choice to use it should appear about as equally as any other stat.
So, using your example, say a game has three stats: strength, charisma, and intelligence. At the beginning of the game, the player sees these stats and decides they want to play as a smooth-talking, charismatic persuader.
Then they come to a door that they can’t get through (and this doesn’t really matter whether the setting is modern or medieval) and they get two choices: look for a way to pick the lock (intelligence) or simply bust the door open (strength).
But there’s no charisma option, so anyone who’s been playing the game as someone charismatic and only levelling up their charisma is a little bit screwed. That’s what the CoG guidelines are trying to prevent: inconsistent use of stats. If you have a stat existing in your game, it should appear roughly equally alongside any other stats. If you have a stat that only appears once or twice in comparison to other stats that are used constantly, it either probably shouldn’t exist in the game at all or should be changed to be more equal. Because what’s the point of having the choice to be a charismatic persuader if you barely ever get the chance to use your charisma to do anything? I hope that makes sense!
There is also the “four-point problem” that CoG references (and which I’m trying to avoid in ShoH). This is when all the choices in your game fall into the same four categories each time (intelligence, strength, charisma, and uhh let’s say stealth). Because the stat-checks for each choice keep on climbing, you essentially get forced into picking the same stat over and over if you want any hope of succeeding in anything. I’m trying to avoid that in ShoH by having important choices check multiple stats (you can pass this if you have high charisma OR mid-level cunning OR mid-level magic AND high enchanting!). That way players of multiple builds have a chance of succeeding in many options they might try and aren’t locked into a particular play-style right from the get-go.
The example you gave with the door was what I was aiming for, but I kind of failed in that department. Sometimes, in a game, a stat cannot do a thing you want. What my botched example meant : in the Lords of Auswick game, you play as a squire that becomes a knight, and war happens; naturally, for getting high combat stats you are rewarded/there are more combat statchecks - so the stats are not equal, but it’s more realistic/fitting in this scenario, rather than int and piety being equal to combat
Yay! This will make for such great replayability too
and when all else fails we can use our words of power…right? :d
I think the most important thing for stats is to get to use them with equal opportunities. They don’t have to be used successfully in the same choice set, but as long as they appear roughly equally throughout the story.
In your example I would say (and I haven’t played Lords of Aswick so this isn’t about it specifically) that if a game is combat-heavy, there’s still a way to employ equal use of stats: while in combat you can choose to strategize (intelligence) or brute-force your way through the ranks (strength) or pray for divine intervention by your god (piety)! I get that it seems harder or less realistic to find equal ways to employ stats, but ideally I’d say it’s something to strive for! (Now, this is largely for normal stats and not opposed-pair stats, which may not appear as frequently!) But yeah, I’ll just echo @UmbraLamia, haha.
So long as you don’t run out of them~
they are lively and amazing
I love that Pikachu face so much
Imagine a ShoH where all of the characters are just Pikachus
Also, interesting thing I noticed on the Gilded Rails demo:
Do people prefer the usual CoG blurb of “play as straight, gay, or bi” or that game’s slightly different “pursue men, women, or both”? Probably a negligible difference but I was curious if anyone had any thoughts on it.
Hmm, I actually really like “pursue men, women, or both”. It somehow feels more… open-ended and less defined than “play as straight, gay, or bi”?
I don’t know, I like the way it’s phrased more than the other one. But maybe that’s because I saw the usual one so often, making the new phrase seem more fresh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I prefer " pursue men,women, both or no one" or something like that, that tells you who you can romance and that it isn’t mandatory
I like ‘pursue men, women or both’ as it kinda implies an action we can take in the story, more so than ‘play as gay, straight or bi’. Adding a ‘no one’ will be nice, so it is clear the game includes a wide spectrum of gender/romance orientations.
my first thought.
While im likely to pursue someone it does feel both more inclusive worded, and at the same time implies its optional. Options are a key thing in CoG’s/HG’s
I think the “or no one” in Gilded Rails’ description is only omitted because romance is an essential mechanic in the game ("…but fail to marry and you could lose it all").
If in the future this new phrase is used in other games as well, I think it will be adapted to what the game offers (optional romance, locked sexuality, no romance at all).
But as a side note: I don’t think we should talk too much about such an off-topic question in this thread. Maybe if someone’s interested in discussing this some more they can open a new thread?
They add a blurb just for romance(which gets one or two scenes anyway), making it look like a big deal, when it’s more of a given : regardless of X’s crazy adventures, X will surely seek a romantic partner(its in the nature of all living beings to seek partners)
Noted! I’ll start a new thread if someone hasn’t done it already
And it’s interesting to see that everyone prefers this new way of doing it! I do, too, so it’s probably what I’ll use for ShoH, but I was wondering (for inclusivity’s sake) if people preferred having their sexual orientation acknowledged and defined right off the bat (play as gay or straight) or if it was more open-ended to just say who you could pursue (which it seems is what everyone prefers!). Super interesting stuff, thanks everyone for your input!
(And yes, for Shepherds of Haven specifically, a “no one” would be added since it’s a game you could play without needing to romance!)
I know it doesn’t really matter but it’s kind of sad it went from 10k clicks all the way back down to 0 haha!