Pentiment - Josh Sawyer's historical mystery narrative-driven game set in 16th century Bavaria

[Major_Blackhart]

Not sure if this is old news, about Sawyers upcoming rpg:

• Focusing on experimental mechanics and interactions.
• It's still being developed by a small team.
• 16th century Europe setting.
• Still planned to have no combat.
• Murder mystery RPG. You will be investigating a murder by talking to people and building a case. You can accuse people of murder. You will possibly continue to play even if you get it wrong and see the consequences.
• Planned to be coming out in 2022.

Dis nigga remakin' Clue for renaissance Yurope?

I mean fuck. Solving murders was as simple as trial by combat, roman law (presumed guilty), church trial, and torture by the executioner until you confess for yo shit they know you did done cause you's a Jew.

 

[undecaf]

Not sure if this is old news, about Sawyers upcoming rpg:

• Focusing on experimental mechanics and interactions.
• It's still being developed by a small team.
• 16th century Europe setting.
• Still planned to have no combat.
• Murder mystery RPG. You will be investigating a murder by talking to people and building a case. You can accuse people of murder. You will possibly continue to play even if you get it wrong and see the consequences.
• Planned to be coming out in 2022.

That sounds kinda intriguing; even if it doesn’t have combat. There’s a lot of potential for interesting and unusual skills and interactions; and outcomes for failed skillchecks beyond a fight or denied access, since combat isn’t taking designtime or resources. Although Sawyer has to be interested in that kind of stuff to make it happen, and I’m not really sure what he’s interests are besides balance in the universe, bicycles and Germany, and possibly balancing a bicycle in Germany.

 

[Harthwain]

Nah, making it so the murderer is random will just make the writing duller since it's either procedually generated or the writers will have to work with several stories at once which will divide their focus a lot.

My point was to shift focus from the writing into mechanical side, including making conduction of the investigation itself more interesting/involving.

 

[Smerlus]

Jez Corden on the Xboxtwo podcast said the Sawyer game is named Pentiment

 

[Humbaba]

Not sure if this is old news, about Sawyers upcoming rpg:

• Focusing on experimental mechanics and interactions.
• It's still being developed by a small team.
• 16th century Europe setting.
• Still planned to have no combat.
• Murder mystery RPG. You will be investigating a murder by talking to people and building a case. You can accuse people of murder. You will possibly continue to play even if you get it wrong and see the consequences.
• Planned to be coming out in 2022.

Dis nigga remakin' Clue for renaissance Yurope?

I mean fuck. Solving murders was as simple as trial by combat, roman law (presumed guilty), church trial, and torture by the executioner until you confess for yo shit they know you did done cause you's a Jew.

Not to mention that there was literally no such thing as a court let alone standardised codes of law anywhere in Europe of that time. Like bruh they burned women at the word of random incels back then. Any murder mystery within such a setting should really be resolved by pointing at the nearest Jew or Elf or whatever and cutting him into pieces. No one would give a shit. If the murder happened let's say in a certain city, any murdered with half a brain would just leave and go to any other place in the realm, escaping the cities jurisdiction entirely.

Also detective games are alway shit. The only exception is Return of the Obra Dinn because there the player actually gets to figure stuff out, instead of the PC being told certain bits of information by pushing the correct button. If this is going to be a clone of that then I'm all in nut I doubt it. This promise of c&c even when getting it wrong sounds so fucking unfeasible it's ridiculous. This is a Kickstarter campaign type of selling point. There's no way they can actually account for all those potential outcomes unless they severely limit choices and the overall scope of the story. Seeing as this is a small team, they're probably going for like a 5 person mystery in someone's living room. Besides, this is Soyer. He probably had the same idea when he decided to make it so that even if Kimball gets offed the game still goes on, which just resulted in that quest not mattering in the slightest whatsoever. I also highly suspect that they're going to throw in a lot of red herrings, which only get revealed as such after your first playthrough, so the devs can feel really clever and go

>"haha tricked you, fucking MORON, you actually thought that the smoking gun belonged to the only guy with index fingers in the whole room you abject RETARD, when in reality it belonged to the TRANSSEXUAL SRI LANKAN, who is actually an international GUN CHAMPION, which you would've known if you figured out that the suicide note was written in her handwriting, which Jimmy Two-Dicks would've told you, if you correctly identified the print of the shoe laces in chapter 3 as belonging to his VERY SPECIFIC BRAND OF YEEZYS and pressed him on the matter, AS LONG AS you never ONCE mention his past as a discord mod, like omfg did you even pass KINDERGARDEN?"

Big shout out to DE for setting this faggot ass precedent that RPG's without combat or any other additional gameplay besides dialogue are somehow acceptable these days. What benefit could it possibly fucking have to remove combat, from a murder mystery no less? You mean to tell me someone got killed in a universe, where you can't even attack people? Why the fuck would you get so motherfucking hung up on le epic variety of choice WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REMOVING AN ENTIRE AND VERY LARGE SET OF CHOICES? Also what fucking roleplaying potential could a detective story even have? Deciding between a good cop bad cop role? Pinning the crime on the black guy instead of the white guy? Is this just going to be a point-and-click?

They cannot. Because they are fucking ignorant and illiterate. For all their faux intellectualism and pretending to be smart they have zero knowledge of anything outside their US and possible Eurocentric bubble.

Could you imagine what kind of cool games we would get if these progressives weren't posers? There is so much cool stuff in Islamic cultures alone that we just never see in games, but we also don't see Christian things either really. Most of the time it is a lossy jpg copy of Tolkien that has been shat up entirely by noise and artifacts so you can't even tell what it originally was. When it isn't then it's just your American west coast bugman bubble type of content. You could read the travelogue of a random historical muslim and come up with far better material.

Yeah several years ago someone asked Sawyer why he just couldn't make an African RPG and he said it was because he knew nothing about it (and obviously doesn't care to)

So Sawyer is just a racist then?

He’s a textbook virtue signaler. He wants kudos for having blacks in his games but he doesn’t give enough of a shit to actually put in the work to study real black cultures. So he just blackwashes Europe. Like all male feminists he’s probably a rapist so it’s only a matter of time until he gets MeToo’d and fucks off forever.

It really is fucking tragic how uncultured Americans tend to be. An African setting or any other non-western European setting would be fucking fantastic. Look at the Witcher series, those games are just a pastiche of slavic myths and people went fucking wild for that shit. But no, racists like Soyer shrug off any suggestion of the sort stating that "oh, I just don't know anything about it". Well, motherfucker, you own a PC with internet access, fucking crack open wikipedia and get started. What's that? You actually meant to say that you don't give a flying fuck about non-European history because there's no castles and knights and pretty aryan princesses and you prefer relegating PoC's to mostly insignificant side roles where they belong for easy good boy points? Of course sir my mistake. Virtue Signallers like Soyer really are just closet racists who are in denial about themselves and act extra progressive to appease their conscience, much like closet fags tend to act extra straight.

 

[Arulan]

Hopefully it's not just a Name of the Rose knockoff, although that would still be interesting for the novelty.

That's what I thought of when I first read the news. Honestly I wouldn't mind this general concept at all.

I think a Sawyer RPG inspired by Disco Elysium set in the historical setting he's been talking about for years sounds great. He's clearly very passionate about this setting, so I'm willing to see what he can do with it. And some novel approaches to dialogue are worth exploring.

 

[Harthwain]

Not to mention that there was literally no such thing as a court let alone standardised codes of law anywhere in Europe of that time.

You don't need "court" or "standardised codes of law" to have a murder mystery. The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco springs to mind here.

Like bruh they burned women at the word of random incels back then. Any murder mystery within such a setting should really be resolved by pointing at the nearest Jew or Elf or whatever and cutting him into pieces. No one would give a shit.

Unless the victim was important enough. Murdering a no-name is certainly going to be treated differently than a death of someone who is an important figure, even if only at a local (like, regional) level. Also, I am sure it isn't supposed to be 100% historically accurate documentary. The finished product may contain a LIBERALE dose of licentia poetica or traces of other potentially harmful SJW/LGBTXYZ substances. Consume with extreme caution.

If the murder happened let's say in a certain city, any murdered with half a brain would just leave and go to any other place in the realm, escaping the cities jurisdiction entirely.

It is possible for the murderer to stick around if he can't just pack up and leave for whatever reason. It's much easier to skip town when you don't have any ties to a place.

Also detective games are alway shit. The only exception is Return of the Obra Dinn because there the player actually gets to figure stuff out, instead of the PC being told certain bits of information by pushing the correct button. If this is going to be a clone of that then I'm all in nut I doubt it.

You can brute-force Return of the Obra Din too. It's not that much different from other puzzle games trying to masquerade as deduction games, because Return of Obra Din will also tell you when your deductions are correct, even when all you do is mashing the options together.

The Consuming Shadow is pretty cool, because the time limit means you can't collect all pieces of information, so at some point you have to make deductions with what you have on hand and nobody is going to tell you if you're right or wrong until you actually try and component change per playthrough, so you can't just remember it all and beat the game that way. The only downside I can think of is when you get enough bonuses from playing long enough that time limits becomes much less of a problem (which is why I like the early/mid portion of it).

Big shout out to DE for setting this faggot ass precedent that RPG's without combat or any other additional gameplay besides dialogue are somehow acceptable these days. What benefit could it possibly fucking have to remove combat, from a murder mystery no less? You mean to tell me someone got killed in a universe, where you can't even attack people? Why the fuck would you get so motherfucking hung up on le epic variety of choice WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REMOVING AN ENTIRE AND VERY LARGE SET OF CHOICES?

It is entirely possible to kill/attack people, even if you don't have a tactical combat layer as such. It's simply a matter of implementing "choices and consequences". Planescape: Torment used this kind of interaction outside of combat too, so it's not like Disco Elysium was the first to come up with it. Disco Elysium simply refined the concept and got rid of the trash combat.

 

[Humbaba]

Not to mention that there was literally no such thing as a court let alone standardised codes of law anywhere in Europe of that time.

You don't need "court" or "standardised codes of law" to have a murder mystery. The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco springs to mind here.

Like bruh they burned women at the word of random incels back then. Any murder mystery within such a setting should really be resolved by pointing at the nearest Jew or Elf or whatever and cutting him into pieces. No one would give a shit.

Unless the victim was important enough. Murdering a no-name is certainly going to be treated differently than a death of someone who is an important figure, even if only at a local (like, regional) level. Also, I am sure it isn't supposed to be 100% historically accurate documentary. The finished product may contain a LIBERALE dose of licentia poetica or traces of other potentially harmful SJW/LGBTXYZ substances. Consume with extreme caution.

If the murder happened let's say in a certain city, any murdered with half a brain would just leave and go to any other place in the realm, escaping the cities jurisdiction entirely.

It is possible for the murderer to stick around if he can't just pack up and leave for whatever reason. It's much easier to skip town when you don't have any ties to a place.

Also detective games are alway shit. The only exception is Return of the Obra Dinn because there the player actually gets to figure stuff out, instead of the PC being told certain bits of information by pushing the correct button. If this is going to be a clone of that then I'm all in nut I doubt it.

You can brute-force Return of the Obra Din too. It's not that much different from other puzzle games trying to masquerade as deduction games, because Return of Obra Din will also tell you when your deductions are correct, even when all you do is mashing the options together.

The Consuming Shadow is pretty cool, because the time limit means you can't collect all pieces of information, so at some point you have to make deductions with what you have on hand and nobody is going to tell you if you're right or wrong until you actually try and component change per playthrough, so you can't just remember it all and beat the game that way. The only downside I can think of is when you get enough bonuses from playing long enough that time limits becomes much less of a problem (which is why I like the early/mid portion of it).

Big shout out to DE for setting this faggot ass precedent that RPG's without combat or any other additional gameplay besides dialogue are somehow acceptable these days. What benefit could it possibly fucking have to remove combat, from a murder mystery no less? You mean to tell me someone got killed in a universe, where you can't even attack people? Why the fuck would you get so motherfucking hung up on le epic variety of choice WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REMOVING AN ENTIRE AND VERY LARGE SET OF CHOICES?

It is entirely possible to kill/attack people, even if you don't have a tactical combat layer as such. It's simply a matter of implementing "choices and consequences". Planescape: Torment used this kind of interaction outside of combat too, so it's not like Disco Elysium was the first to come up with it. Disco Elysium simply refined the concept and got rid of the trash combat.

In a word: No.

You don't need "court" or "standardised codes of law" to have a murder mystery. The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco springs to mind here.

The book and the movie both take place within a monastery, where there is a very clear code of conduct. Also, the inquisition gets involved on the orders of the pope. The plot does not revolve around some hobbyist detectives, acting on their own volition according to their own ethics.

Unless the victim was important enough. Murdering a no-name is certainly going to be treated differently than a death of someone who is an important figure, even if only at a local (like, regional) level. Also, I am sure it isn't supposed to be 100% historically accurate documentary. The finished product may contain a LIBERALE dose of licentia poetica or traces of other potentially harmful SJW/LGBTXYZ substances. Consume with extreme caution.

Even if the murderee was like a powerful noble, chances are that his murderer was also a noble, who probably had him murdered via an assassin. A random peasant offing a knight seems extremely implausible and important people in medieval times generally don't get prosecuted. What role would the PC even have? There were no police officers back then. Seems like a waste of a setting to me, even with a highly liberal dose of artistic licence.

It is possible for the murderer to stick around if he can't just pack up and leave for whatever reason. It's much easier to skip town when you don't have any ties to a place.

If the murder was premeditated, any half intelligent murderer would make preparations to skip town immediately. If it's just a case of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter then the whole """"murder"""" mystery falls flat.

You can brute-force Return of the Obra Din too. It's not that much different from other puzzle games trying to masquerade as deduction games, because Return of Obra Din will also tell you when your deductions are correct, even when all you do is mashing the options together.

You can theoretically brute force Obra Dinn the same way a pack of monkeys could theoretically reproduce Shakespeare given enough time.

It is entirely possible to kill/attack people, even if you don't have a tactical combat layer as such. It's simply a matter of implementing "choices and consequences". Planescape: Torment used this kind of interaction outside of combat too, so it's not like Disco Elysium was the first to come up with it. Disco Elysium simply refined the concept and got rid of the trash combat.

PST's murder options in dialogue only gained any significance by the tactical combat layer already existing. Choking someone out via dialogue represented you getting the drop on somebody by virtue of your superior skill points for example, or your immoral instincts getting the better of you, which added greatly to the potential characterisation of TNO. Such characterisation is impossible through normal combat where you engage in "battle" not "murder". Only through the existence of both does either attain any meaning. Let's all remind ourselves of the encounter with the Practical Incarnation in the Maze of Reflections. There, you are given the option of merging with TPI through sheer willpower, which happens through dialogue. Alternatively, you can fight him conventionally, which happens through the combat interface. If both fighting and merging both happened through dialogue, the distinction between those options would be completely meaningless, since in terms of gameplay they are identical.

 

[Harthwain]

In a word: No.

In a word: Bullshit.

But I must commend you for taking up the gauntlet and elaborating on your stance. Many people around these parts would be content with just using a button rather than engage in a debate.

The book and the movie both take place within a monastery, where there is a very clear code of conduct.

Except the code of conduct of the monastery in question (or any monastery) isn't related to how you conduct a professional murder investigation.

Also, the inquisition gets involved on the orders of the pope. The plot does not revolve around some hobbyist detectives, acting on their own volition according to their own ethics.

The inquisition may be involved and this could be used an an example of professional "seekers of truth", but the monks in charge of the investigation aren't inquisitors (or professional detectives, however we may wish to label such activities). They just happen to be there at the time and are asked to find the cause of death, Their involvement is purely accidental, while "some hobbyist detectives, acting on their own volition" at least have some knowledge or background concerning the issue, regardless of how small it could be, so I find your argument to be self-defeating. Evenmoreso considering you were the one saying how the world in that day and age lacked the sophistication to deal with doing any murder investigating.

A murder myster is exactly what it says on the tin: a murder mistery. Having Sherlock or Poirot on hand isn't required to have one, although it certainly helps, because they can give the plot a structure by shaping the flow of the book. However, given the fact that you want some random schmucks to play your game (some of which may have no prior knowledge about crime-solving) it isn't unreasonable to do exactly what Umbero Eco did and just throw some random characters into the grinder and let them try and solve the mystery purely by using their wits/logic.

Even if the murderee was like a powerful noble, chances are that his murderer was also a noble, who probably had him murdered via an assassin. A random peasant offing a knight seems extremely implausible and important people in medieval times generally don't get prosecuted. What role would the PC even have? There were no police officers back then. Seems like a waste of a setting to me, even with a highly liberal dose of artistic licence.

1) Doesn't have to be a noble. Could be a merchant. Or someone close to people in the positions of power, meaning they'd wish to know if they were the intended targets and if so - who wanted to get them killed.

2) Some people could be untouchable (so you could simply find yourself in a position where you will have to go against the grain, should you wish to try and prosecute the killer), but generally murder wasn't a light affair, even back in the medieval times. Combine this with doing the deed without the knowledge or approval of the person ruling the area and this could be enough for doing an official investigation. Or a quiet one.

3) Yes, there were no police officers back then. But if you think that cities or nobles didn't have armed retainers who were tasked with upholding the peace in name of their liege, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. So, yeah, you could be such retainer, tasked with finding the killer to bring him to justice in order to make the populace see that they are protected and/or make them see what happens to those who go against their lord's wishes (such as breaking laws he commands them to uphold).

If the murder was premeditated, any half intelligent murderer would make preparations to skip town immediately.

Once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about, because that's now how it works in real life. Firstly - people are not as intelligent as you seem to think. Secondly - they could think nobody will find out what they did. Thirdly - they may operate with the assumption they are powerful enough to silence anyone who attempts to make the truth known, thereby feeling no need to move (and abandon their land/property/established way of life).

You can theoretically brute force Obra Dinn the same way a pack of monkeys could theoretically reproduce Shakespeare given enough time.

I'd argue recreating Shakespeare is going to take more time. Also, you could say that Obra Dinn isn't really a game as such.

PST's murder options in dialogue only gained any significance by the tactical combat layer already existing.

Nah, you could cut out the whole tactical combat layer and the game wouldn't lose a thing. If anything one could say the player would gain by not being forced was his time to go through shitty combat just for the sake of going through shitty combat (like these totally pointless random encounters when you moved between locations). So either make good combat or cut it. But anyone saying with a straight face that having a shitty combat is good/needed/required/adds anything worthwhile to a game is simply brain-damaged.

Such characterisation is impossible through normal combat where you engage in "battle" not "murder".

I get you don't like doing battle this way, but your statement is simply wrong, because you can have battle via dialogue (as evidenced by Disco Elysium). All that really changes in the manner, but not the deed itself (having somebody killed). Mind you, I say all this as someone who highly prefers systemic/simulationist approach to gaming over narratively-driven one.

Let's all remind ourselves of the encounter with the Practical Incarnation in the Maze of Reflections. There, you are given the option of merging with TPI through sheer willpower, which happens through dialogue. Alternatively, you can fight him conventionally, which happens through the combat interface. If both fighting and merging both happened through dialogue, the distinction between those options would be completely meaningless, since in terms of gameplay they are identical.

Remember what I said about brain-damage? This is a perfect example of what I meant. And I don't meant this as an insult, just to illustrate how stupid this way of thinking is to me. For you the mere fact of killing somebody in a tactical layer is "totally different" from killing somebody via a dialogue option. I don't care how I kill the guy who wishes the Memorial stone to split when his name is written at the base of it, because the end result is the same no matter what. As a result I am fine with no tactical layer, provided I get enough options to accomodate for the lack of it. Now, the tactical layer as such could matter had combat not been shit in Planescape: Torment (unlike in other Infinity Engine games), but sadly it is.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

Blackshirt appears to have only watched the (admittedly quite enjoyable) film adaptation of The Name of the Rose and made the midwit mistake of thinking it to be at all successful at transferring the novel to the screen.

 

[Humbaba]

In a word: No.

In a word: Bullshit.

But I must commend you for taking up the gauntlet and elaborating on your stance. Many people around these parts would be content with just using a button rather than engage in a debate.

The book and the movie both take place within a monastery, where there is a very clear code of conduct.

Except the code of conduct of the monastery in question (or any monastery) isn't related to how you conduct a professional murder investigation.

Also, the inquisition gets involved on the orders of the pope. The plot does not revolve around some hobbyist detectives, acting on their own volition according to their own ethics.

The inquisition may be involved and this could be used an an example of professional "seekers of truth", but the monks in charge of the investigation aren't inquisitors (or professional detectives, however we may wish to label such activities). They just happen to be there at the time and are asked to find the cause of death, Their involvement is purely accidental, while "some hobbyist detectives, acting on their own volition" at least have some knowledge or background concerning the issue, regardless of how small it could be, so I find your argument to be self-defeating. Evenmoreso considering you were the one saying how the world in that day and age lacked the sophistication to deal with doing any murder investigating.

A murder myster is exactly what it says on the tin: a murder mistery. Having Sherlock or Poirot on hand isn't required to have one, although it certainly helps, because they can give the plot a structure by shaping the flow of the book. However, given the fact that you want some random schmucks to play your game (some of which may have no prior knowledge about crime-solving) it isn't unreasonable to do exactly what Umbero Eco did and just throw some random characters into the grinder and let them try and solve the mystery purely by using their wits/logic.

Even if the murderee was like a powerful noble, chances are that his murderer was also a noble, who probably had him murdered via an assassin. A random peasant offing a knight seems extremely implausible and important people in medieval times generally don't get prosecuted. What role would the PC even have? There were no police officers back then. Seems like a waste of a setting to me, even with a highly liberal dose of artistic licence.

1) Doesn't have to be a noble. Could be a merchant. Or someone close to people in the positions of power, meaning they'd wish to know if they were the intended targets and if so - who wanted to get them killed.

2) Some people could be untouchable (so you could simply find yourself in a position where you will have to go against the grain, should you wish to try and prosecute the killer), but generally murder wasn't a light affair, even back in the medieval times. Combine this with doing the deed without the knowledge or approval of the person ruling the area and this could be enough for doing an official investigation. Or a quiet one.

3) Yes, there were no police officers back then. But if you think that cities or nobles didn't have armed retainers who were tasked with upholding the peace in name of their liege, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. So, yeah, you could be such retainer, tasked with finding the killer to bring him to justice in order to make the populace see that they are protected and/or make them see what happens to those who go against their lord's wishes (such as breaking laws he commands them to uphold).

If the murder was premeditated, any half intelligent murderer would make preparations to skip town immediately.

Once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about, because that's now how it works in real life. Firstly - people are not as intelligent as you seem to think. Secondly - they could think nobody will find out what they did. Thirdly - they may operate with the assumption they are powerful enough to silence anyone who attempts to make the truth known, thereby feeling no need to move (and abandon their land/property/established way of life).

You can theoretically brute force Obra Dinn the same way a pack of monkeys could theoretically reproduce Shakespeare given enough time.

I'd argue recreating Shakespeare is going to take more time. Also, you could say that Obra Dinn isn't really a game as such.

PST's murder options in dialogue only gained any significance by the tactical combat layer already existing.

Nah, you could cut out the whole tactical combat layer and the game wouldn't lose a thing. If anything one could say the player would gain by not being forced was his time to go through shitty combat just for the sake of going through shitty combat (like these totally pointless random encounters when you moved between locations). So either make good combat or cut it. But anyone saying with a straight face that having a shitty combat is good/needed/required/adds anything worthwhile to a game is simply brain-damaged.

Such characterisation is impossible through normal combat where you engage in "battle" not "murder".

I get you don't like doing battle this way, but your statement is simply wrong, because you can have battle via dialogue (as evidenced by Disco Elysium). All that really changes in the manner, but not the deed itself (having somebody killed). Mind you, I say all this as someone who highly prefers systemic/simulationist approach to gaming over narratively-driven one.

Let's all remind ourselves of the encounter with the Practical Incarnation in the Maze of Reflections. There, you are given the option of merging with TPI through sheer willpower, which happens through dialogue. Alternatively, you can fight him conventionally, which happens through the combat interface. If both fighting and merging both happened through dialogue, the distinction between those options would be completely meaningless, since in terms of gameplay they are identical.

Remember what I said about brain-damage? This is a perfect example of what I meant. And I don't meant this as an insult, just to illustrate how stupid this way of thinking is to me. For you the mere fact of killing somebody in a tactical layer is "totally different" from killing somebody via a dialogue option. I don't care how I kill the guy who wishes the Memorial stone to split when his name is written at the base of it, because the end result is the same no matter what. As a result I am fine with no tactical layer, provided I get enough options to accomodate for the lack of it. Now, the tactical layer as such could matter had combat not been shit in Planescape: Torment (unlike in other Infinity Engine games), but sadly it is.

In a word: ijsebfiuzsnbciusenciece

Except the code of conduct of the monastery in question (or any monastery) isn't related to how you conduct a professional murder investigation.

The question was never about how an investigation would be conducted but whether or not the structures where in place to facilitate an investigation. Please drop the goalposts.

The inquisition may be involved and this could be used an an example of professional "seekers of truth", but the monks in charge of the investigation aren't inquisitors (or professional detectives, however we may wish to label such activities). They just happen to be there at the time and are asked to find the cause of death, Their involvement is purely accidental, while "some hobbyist detectives, acting on their own volition" at least have some knowledge or background concerning the issue, regardless of how small it could be, so I find your argument to be self-defeating. Evenmoreso considering you were the one saying how the world in that day and age lacked the sophistication to deal with doing any murder investigating.

You're conflating things. First off, yes the monks are not professional inquisitors and are very much thrust into detective roles. However, this is only possible through the overall framework provided by the monastery. I never said that "the world" lacked the sophistication to allow for a murder investigation, what I was referring to was city settings in particular. A monastery is very different from a city as it is a very close knit community, it's population is much lower and more observable and there are people with something resembling legal authority and the ability to order and conduct an investigation. In a medieval city, this is very different, as most people there are very much expendable relative to a monk and there is no police force to even identify murders as such or with the capacity to properly investigate crime in a city. At best, you find John Smith dead in an alley with a knife in his back, pin the crime on his neighbour and be done with it. In fact, a medieval murder mystery could only function in a monastery or an equally small scale type setting,

1) Doesn't have to be a noble. Could be a merchant. Or someone close to people in the positions of power, meaning they'd wish to know if they were the intended targets and if so - who wanted to get them killed.

Merchants aren't important people per se, unless you contrive a reason why they could be, for example if it's the baron's personal loli supplier or whatever. If it's someone close to power i.e. if the whole thing is a court intrigue, then an investigation will most likely not be ordered by anybody because chances are that the authorities, whatever they may be, are in on it or are told to keep quiet. Of course there are contrivances to justify such things but I don't trust Soyer to come up with anything plausible.

2) Some people could be untouchable (so you could simply find yourself in a position where you will have to go against the grain, should you wish to try and prosecute the killer), but generally murder wasn't a light affair, even back in the medieval times. Combine this with doing the deed without the knowledge or approval of the person ruling the area and this could be enough for doing an official investigation. Or a quiet one.

Again, contrivances are possible but that's what they are, contrivances. Not exactly great writing.

Once again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about, because that's now how it works in real life. Firstly - people are not as intelligent as you seem to think. Secondly - they could think nobody will find out what they did. Thirdly - they may operate with the assumption they are powerful enough to silence anyone who attempts to make the truth known, thereby feeling no need to move (and abandon their land/property/established way of life).

If you wanna have a good murder mystery then the murderer can't be a dumbass. Otherwise that investigation would be over real quick. If they can safely assume that they can get away with murder by virtue of their power, then chances are that they actually can.

Also, you could say that Obra Dinn isn't really a game as such.

No.

Nah, you could cut out the whole tactical combat layer and the game wouldn't lose a thing. If anything one could say the player would gain by not being forced was his time to go through shitty combat just for the sake of going through shitty combat (like these totally pointless random encounters when you moved between locations). So either make good combat or cut it. But anyone saying with a straight face that having a shitty combat is good/needed/required/adds anything worthwhile to a game is simply brain-damaged.

I think you just have a real gripe with PST's combat for whatever reason. It is completely serviceable, if you ask me.

I get you don't like doing battle this way, but your statement is simply wrong, because you can have battle via dialogue (as evidenced by Disco Elysium). All that really changes in the manner, but not the deed itself (having somebody killed). Mind you, I say all this as someone who highly prefers systemic/simulationist approach to gaming over narratively-driven one.

You're arbitrarily confining the significance of an act to its outcome. If the manner really made no difference, you could remove every piece of dialogue from DE and replace it with numbered buttons, about which you are told directly what each of them will cause, and not be bothered by it. You could remove every line with direct triggers, which if activated in the correct order would trigger the game's ending. According to your logic, this would be the same as experiencing the story through writing, just because you still reach the same outcome. This also applies to combat, if only for the satisfaction of beating an encounter via proper strategy instead of clicking on the right number.

Remember what I said about brain-damage? This is a perfect example of what I meant. And I don't meant this as an insult, just to illustrate how stupid this way of thinking is to me. For you the mere fact of killing somebody in a tactical layer is "totally different" from killing somebody via a dialogue option. I don't care how I kill the guy who wishes the Memorial stone to split when his name is written at the base of it, because the end result is the same no matter what. As a result I am fine with no tactical layer, provided I get enough options to accomodate for the lack of it. Now, the tactical layer as such could matter had combat not been shit in Planescape: Torment (unlike in other Infinity Engine games), but sadly it is.

Same goes for this nonsense. But yeah, I'm the one with brain damage.

 

[copebot]

If you're curious about criminal procedure in 15th century England contrasted with procedure in France of the same time period, you can read John Fortescue on the topic here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/ind...ance_of_England_(Plummer_ed,_1885).pdf&page=1

Many of the stereotypes that people articulate about medieval law administration are very similar to English contrasting stereotypes about French governance from that time period.

For more complete and later compilations on the development of law in England there's always Blackstone, which remains relevant to this day -- its definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, for example, was key in the defense of Donald Trump articulated by Alan Dershowitz: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp

You can't really stereotype all of Europe's justice systems. Obviously if you go back far enough even in England it's just oonga-boonga stuff and we don't really have much in the way of written records for the immediate post-Roman period when Merlin was levitating Stonehenge (which objectively happened, it's science). It's also hard to stereotype about Rome's legal system because it changed substantially over time. It's easier to talk about specific texts or regimes than it is to try to generalize. For instance, you can talk about Justinian's legal code and compare it to ours, which was a codification of past Roman law more than it was the creation of an entirely new body of law. It's easier to speak accurately about what Justinian's code said than it is to try to make a blanket statement about 1,000 years of the administration of law throughout multiple periods of Roman history in different regions. It's easier to speak accurately about specific laws issued by some specific emperor during the Han period than it is to make an accurate statement about how all of Chinese law was administered everywhere in China over the course of 2,500 years.

Similarly, when adapting history to fiction, it's probably better to pick a specific period rather than operating off of a vague pastiche. First of all, it's probably harder to make a compelling pastiche. You can just plagiarize directly from history and most people won't notice. History is already a genre of 'augmented fiction' so if a story has survived for a long time, it probably has a compelling narrative structure.

 

[Harthwain]

The question was never about how an investigation would be conducted but whether or not the structures where in place to facilitate an investigation.

I wouldn't worry about lack of witnesses or clues to "facilitate an investigation" in a movie/video game/book/whatever piece of entertainment. You can have a murder mystery take place in literally any time period or location.

Please drop the goalposts.

It's ironic of you to say that.

You're conflating things. First off, yes the monks are not professional inquisitors and are very much thrust into detective roles. However, this is only possible through the overall framework provided by the monastery. I never said that "the world" lacked the sophistication to allow for a murder investigation, what I was referring to was city settings in particular. A monastery is very different from a city as it is a very close knit community, it's population is much lower and more observable and there are people with something resembling legal authority and the ability to order and conduct an investigation. In a medieval city, this is very different, as most people there are very much expendable relative to a monk and there is no police force to even identify murders as such or with the capacity to properly investigate crime in a city. At best, you find John Smith dead in an alley with a knife in his back, pin the crime on his neighbour and be done with it. In fact, a medieval murder mystery could only function in a monastery or an equally small scale type setting,

Except in medieval times the communities were "very close knit" by default. And it wasn't some Wild West you imagine it to be. Sure, a city is going to offer more anonymity than a monastery or a village, but to be able to enter a city you had to get a permit from local authorities. That required fee and/or documentation and you had to go in through a guarded city gate, the whole point of which was to provide a controlled access point to and from it. City gates would close at night and there was a curfew. Oh, and the roads were patrolled.

Merchants aren't important people per se, unless you contrive a reason why they could be, for example if it's the baron's personal loli supplier or whatever.

Quite to the contrary - merchants and artisans were pretty damn important in a medieval society, especially in smaller places. And even in bigger cities there were guilds.

If it's someone close to power i.e. if the whole thing is a court intrigue, then an investigation will most likely not be ordered by anybody because chances are that the authorities, whatever they may be, are in on it or are told to keep quiet.

There will be a murder mystery that you - the player - will be investigating. The only question marks are who you will be in the societal power structure and who will your superior/liege be. Besides that, nobody says it has to be an official investigation. You could be launching quiet inquires on behalf of whoever wants to know. Cloak and dagger could suit a murder mystery theme, after all.

If you wanna have a good murder mystery then the murderer can't be a dumbass. Otherwise that investigation would be over real quick.

Well, I am not really expecting it to be good. Hence me hoping for the experimental side of things to be interesting.

No.

Oh yes. So much yes. I mean, if you are shitting on Disco Elysium for being a "point-and-click adventure", then what can be said about a "game" in which all you see are a bunch of static 3D scenes, a few of 2D pictures/schematics, where you fill in the pre-made names/positions? Yes, you can make deductions, I'll grant you that much, but is it enough to call the whole thing a "game"? It's quite funny to see how hypocritical people can be when it comes to judging things.

I think you just have a real gripe with PST's combat for whatever reason. It is completely serviceable, if you ask me.

There is a term for it on the Codex: "trash combat": https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/so-what-exactly-is-trash-combat.88008/

You're arbitrarily confining the significance of an act to its outcome.

As opposed to you arbirarily giving the significance of the said act to the tactical layer? For no other reason than it being the tactical layer and not the narrative layer? When all you do is smack a dude with a club or use some low-level spell on him? Seriously? So, yeah, I maintain my opinion on the whole brain-damage thing.

This also applies to combat, if only for the satisfaction of beating an encounter via proper strategy instead of clicking on the right number.

I keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to get through for some reason: we're talking about PLANESCAPE: TORMENT'S combat here. There is no satisfaction to be had of beating an encounter via proper strategy there. I'd rather click on the right number in this particular case.

 

[Greek Anime God]

Are you two autists expecting anyone, even the other guy, to read all that shit?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Occam's Paintbrush - a desperate attempt to paint over the whole point of Occam's Razor. Telltale signs: Usually involves watercolors and normally-straight flowchart arrows twisted into knots.

 

[Sannom]

Let's all remind ourselves of the encounter with the Practical Incarnation in the Maze of Reflections. There, you are given the option of merging with TPI through sheer willpower, which happens through dialogue. Alternatively, you can fight him conventionally, which happens through the combat interface. If both fighting and merging both happened through dialogue, the distinction between those options would be completely meaningless, since in terms of gameplay they are identical.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't the conventional fight not so much an alternative as much as the loser option because you couldn't merge him into yourself ? TNO gains a lot when he forces the Practical Incarnation to merge with him, but nothing if he refuses to try and simply bashes his head in... having the conventional fight be done in dialogs might have been better!

 

[FreeKaner]

Yeah several years ago someone asked Sawyer why he just couldn't make an African RPG and he said it was because he knew nothing about it (and obviously doesn't care to) and that his expertise was in Europe (he majored in history with a focus on early-modern Europe).

What did anyone expect from an Austrian supremacist? That he would learn history outside of Austria and Holy Roman Empire? I mean Sawyer doesn't know anything about even Ottomans. A state which was intrinsic part of Austrian and HRE history, an omnipresent concern in their politics, military and even economy (HRE had a tax called "Turk tax" to fund wars against Ottomans) yet the man probably couldn't even tell you what the title of the monarch of Ottoman Empire was. If he doesn't know and care to know anything about that, to assume that he'd know name of any entities that didn't directly border Austria or Holy Roman Empire would be extremely naive wishful thinking.

 

[Infinitron]

I guess it'll be up on GiantBomb later: https://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/

Here it is btw, if anybody has a premium account: https://www.giantbomb.com/shows/gru...mes-lite-brites-and-your-questions/2970-21298

Welcome to Dripfeed! The goal of these videos are to bridge the gap between YouTube and press by inviting the press in to discuss the stories they have broken and provide more details on their reports for those eager for more. Today, we dive into a new Obsidian RPG that has leaked. It comes from Josh Sawyer who headed up Fallout New Vegas and Pillars Of Eternity. Joining me is Jeff Grubb to break down all we know so far on the game.

 

[KVVRR]

Nah, making it so the murderer is random will just make the writing duller since it's either procedually generated or the writers will have to work with several stories at once which will divide their focus a lot.

My point was to shift focus from the writing into mechanical side, including making conduction of the investigation itself more interesting/involving.

ah sorry i've been sleepy all week

 

[Hace El Oso]

You could read the travelogue of a random historical muslim and come up with far better material.

No kidding:

 

[Humbaba]

The question was never about how an investigation would be conducted but whether or not the structures where in place to facilitate an investigation.

I wouldn't worry about lack of witnesses or clues to "facilitate an investigation" in a movie/video game/book/whatever piece of entertainment. You can have a murder mystery take place in literally any time period or location.

Please drop the goalposts.

It's ironic of you to say that.

You're conflating things. First off, yes the monks are not professional inquisitors and are very much thrust into detective roles. However, this is only possible through the overall framework provided by the monastery. I never said that "the world" lacked the sophistication to allow for a murder investigation, what I was referring to was city settings in particular. A monastery is very different from a city as it is a very close knit community, it's population is much lower and more observable and there are people with something resembling legal authority and the ability to order and conduct an investigation. In a medieval city, this is very different, as most people there are very much expendable relative to a monk and there is no police force to even identify murders as such or with the capacity to properly investigate crime in a city. At best, you find John Smith dead in an alley with a knife in his back, pin the crime on his neighbour and be done with it. In fact, a medieval murder mystery could only function in a monastery or an equally small scale type setting,

Except in medieval times the communities were "very close knit" by default. And it wasn't some Wild West you imagine it to be. Sure, a city is going to offer more anonymity than a monastery or a village, but to be able to enter a city you had to get a permit from local authorities. That required fee and/or documentation and you had to go in through a guarded city gate, the whole point of which was to provide a controlled access point to and from it. City gates would close at night and there was a curfew. Oh, and the roads were patrolled.

Merchants aren't important people per se, unless you contrive a reason why they could be, for example if it's the baron's personal loli supplier or whatever.

Quite to the contrary - merchants and artisans were pretty damn important in a medieval society, especially in smaller places. And even in bigger cities there were guilds.

If it's someone close to power i.e. if the whole thing is a court intrigue, then an investigation will most likely not be ordered by anybody because chances are that the authorities, whatever they may be, are in on it or are told to keep quiet.

There will be a murder mystery that you - the player - will be investigating. The only question marks are who you will be in the societal power structure and who will your superior/liege be. Besides that, nobody says it has to be an official investigation. You could be launching quiet inquires on behalf of whoever wants to know. Cloak and dagger could suit a murder mystery theme, after all.

If you wanna have a good murder mystery then the murderer can't be a dumbass. Otherwise that investigation would be over real quick.

Well, I am not really expecting it to be good. Hence me hoping for the experimental side of things to be interesting.

No.

Oh yes. So much yes. I mean, if you are shitting on Disco Elysium for being a "point-and-click adventure", then what can be said about a "game" in which all you see are a bunch of static 3D scenes, a few of 2D pictures/schematics, where you fill in the pre-made names/positions? Yes, you can make deductions, I'll grant you that much, but is it enough to call the whole thing a "game"? It's quite funny to see how hypocritical people can be when it comes to judging things.

I think you just have a real gripe with PST's combat for whatever reason. It is completely serviceable, if you ask me.

There is a term for it on the Codex: "trash combat": https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/so-what-exactly-is-trash-combat.88008/

You're arbitrarily confining the significance of an act to its outcome.

As opposed to you arbirarily giving the significance of the said act to the tactical layer? For no other reason than it being the tactical layer and not the narrative layer? When all you do is smack a dude with a club or use some low-level spell on him? Seriously? So, yeah, I maintain my opinion on the whole brain-damage thing.

This also applies to combat, if only for the satisfaction of beating an encounter via proper strategy instead of clicking on the right number.

I keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to get through for some reason: we're talking about PLANESCAPE: TORMENT'S combat here. There is no satisfaction to be had of beating an encounter via proper strategy there. I'd rather click on the right number in this particular case.

This is horrible, christ.

I wouldn't worry about lack of witnesses or clues to "facilitate an investigation" in a movie/video game/book/whatever piece of entertainment. You can have a murder mystery take place in literally any time period or location.

Number of witnesses or clues are not what's important here, it's also not what I said or referred to. I told you to drop the goal posts. It's administrative structures that can feasibly accommodate something resembling a murder investigation suitable for a murder mystery story.

It's ironic of you to say that.

Ah yes, "no u" the pinnacle of rhetoric.

Quite to the contrary - merchants and artisans were pretty damn important in a medieval society, especially in smaller places. And even in bigger cities there were guilds.

So we're no longer talking about political power and importance but about the usefulness of individual potion sellers and shoe makers in medieval society in general? No argument there, but please put down those goal posts already. Guilds don't make anyone important by default. Everybody had guilds back then, that doesn't mean that individual smiths were powerful people. You could make a murder mystery surrounding a guild come to think of it but then again you'd have to contrive a reason as to what authority the PC has to conduct the investigation for one thing.

Oh yes. So much yes. I mean, if you are shitting on Disco Elysium for being a "point-and-click adventure", then what can be said about a "game" in which all you see are a bunch of static 3D scenes, a few of 2D pictures/schematics, where you fill in the pre-made names/positions? Yes, you can make deductions, I'll grant you that much, but is it enough to call the whole thing a "game"?

Yes.

There is a term for it on the Codex: "trash combat": https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/so-what-exactly-is-trash-combat.88008/

You know what, let's chalk this up to personal preference and leave it at that.

As opposed to you arbirarily giving the significance of the said act to the tactical layer? For no other reason than it being the tactical layer and not the narrative layer?

Which I never once did. Also "no u" again. The goal posts keep moving.

I keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to get through for some reason: we're talking about PLANESCAPE: TORMENT'S combat here.

Only you keep fixating on PST, I was talking in a more general sense. Suppose that's the result of le epic brain damage.

Yeah, not gonna waste my Sunday by arguing with someone like you. Cheers.

Are you two autists expecting anyone, even the other guy, to read all that shit?

Twitter's that way, sir.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't the conventional fight not so much an alternative as much as the loser option because you couldn't merge him into yourself ? TNO gains a lot when he forces the Practical Incarnation to merge with him, but nothing if he refuses to try and simply bashes his head in... having the conventional fight be done in dialogs might have been better!

That's all true but that wasn't the point.

What did anyone expect from an Austrian supremacist? That he would learn history outside of Austria and Holy Roman Empire? I mean Sawyer doesn't know anything about even Ottomans. A state which was intrinsic part of Austrian and HRE history, an omnipresent concern in their politics, military and even economy (HRE had a tax called "Turk tax" to fund wars against Ottomans) yet the man probably couldn't even tell you what the title of the monarch of Ottoman Empire was. If he doesn't know and care to know anything about that, to assume that he'd know name of any entities that didn't directly border Austria or Holy Roman Empire would be extremely naive wishful thinking.

A Turkpunk RPG would be rad as hell too.

 

[Harthwain]

Number of witnesses or clues are not what's important here, it's also not what I said or referred to. I told you to drop the goal posts. It's administrative structures that can feasibly accommodate something resembling a murder investigation suitable for a murder mystery story.

There were a plenty of paper or money trails following you around - you had to have a liege (in England, for example, you were considered an outlaw otherwise) and you had to have a permission from him to leave your place. Scribes were issuing various papers to those who needed them. You had to have a permit to enter a city's market fair. Access to a city was controlled. You had to pay toll for using roads, highways, bridges, ferries (as well as other taxes). You were staying at inns or churches/chapels when on the road... Talking out of your ass and repeating mantras about the lack of "administrative structures" isn't going to negate any of that. Buy hey, the bullshit has to flow somehow, right? And acknowledging the existence of all the above would really hamper the illusion you're trying to craft here, so I get what you're doing and why.

Ah yes, "no u" the pinnacle of rhetoric.

Just pointing out the pot is calling the kettle black. Also, it's a funny statement coming from someone who constantly says "No", with nothing else in support.

So we're no longer talking about political power and importance but about the usefulness of individual potion sellers and shoe makers in medieval society in general? No argument there, but please put down those goal posts already.

Who is moving the goalposts here now? You were the one to say "merchants weren't important people" when it fact merchants were the richest inhabitants of medieval cities, with potential to be members of the city council. And even if you were a little craftman fish, being part of a guild was enough to make the whole structure powerful enough by the virtue of establishing a monopoly.

Guilds don't make anyone important by default. Everybody had guilds back then, that doesn't mean that individual smiths were powerful people.

Bullshit. The reason guilds were formed was because banding together MADE them more powerful than acting as a bunch of individuals. It allowed them to control the market and the craft itself, because in order to sell your craft you had to be a guild member, meaning you had to pay the membership fees. And individual craftmen were notable people on a village level, since they offered access to various good people needed. Maybe I should remind you that we aren't talking about the modern times, where the service and distribution sector offers an abundance of stores so you can pick and choose where to go to buy what you want at prices you find affordable.

Yes.

That's not an argument, but I am not surprised you lack one to bolster your opinion.

You know what, let's chalk this up to personal preference and leave it at that.

No.

Why, you chickened out when you saw the other members of the Codex sharing my opinion on Planescape: Torment's combat being trash and not some esteemed "satisfaction of beating an encounter via proper strategy", like you claimed it to be? Well, the more you know...

Which I never once did. Also "no u" again. The goal posts keep moving.

Bullshit:

PST's murder options in dialogue only gained any significance by the tactical combat layer already existing. Choking someone out via dialogue represented you getting the drop on somebody by virtue of your superior skill points for example, or your immoral instincts getting the better of you, which added greatly to the potential characterisation of TNO. Such characterisation is impossible through normal combat where you engage in "battle" not "murder". Only through the existence of both does either attain any meaning. Let's all remind ourselves of the encounter with the Practical Incarnation in the Maze of Reflections. There, you are given the option of merging with TPI through sheer willpower, which happens through dialogue. Alternatively, you can fight him conventionally, which happens through the combat interface. If both fighting and merging both happened through dialogue, the distinction between those options would be completely meaningless, since in terms of gameplay they are identical.

If you decide to lie, then at least you should do the smart thing and make sure to do it in a way no one can catch you on that.

Only you keep fixating on PST, I was talking in a more general sense. Suppose that's the result of le epic brain damage.

Trying to move the goalpost here, aren't we? You were talking about Planescape: Torment just as I did, but since you realized you can't beat my argument you try to side-step the issue instead.

Yeah, not gonna waste my Sunday by arguing with someone like you. Cheers.

It's truly a strange way to spell "I don't know how to answer you without admitting to being wrong, so I am going to attempt to save face by saying that I am not going to >waste my obviously valuable time by discussing with you any longer< and that way hopefully nobody will notice I ran out of ideas how to dig myself out of the hole I made with my wild claims", but I am going to take it.

 

[Morgoth]

Joscha Sauer presents Das mittelalterliche Detektiv-Rollenspiel.

Spoiler

Hint: The cardinal will be the culprit.

 

[Nano]

It's amazing how Blackshirt types so much but says so little.

 

[Humbaba]

It's truly a strange way to spell "I don't know how to answer you without admitting to being wrong, so I am going to attempt to save face by saying that I am not going to >waste my obviously valuable time by discussing with you any longer< and that way hopefully nobody will notice I ran out of ideas how to dig myself out of the hole I made with my wild claims", but I am going to take it.

Keep telling yourself that hon :*