Revision of Events and Their Development In CK3

[Serenity84]

Certain people (me included incase it wasn't obvious) dislike it because its like a distillation of everything they dislike about events. Its ridiculous, ignores basic logic, and has no sense of the historical reality of the era.

This. I feel like there is a defense of single events while ignoring or downplaying the systemic issues with the way events are written. Some of that was present in CK2 already, but CK3 leaned into it even more heavily, or at least didn't make a course correction.

• No sense of location. You can randomly run into people who shouldn't be there. A rival vassal in the camp is a harmless case compared to meeting someone who should be far away in their own realm - including other kings and emperors. There are also events where you somehow end up in places you shouldn't be.
• Your rulers acting like they are normal commoners. Some of that is appropriate for a small tribal chief, but why are kings and emperors drinking in the village tavern, taking strolls through town, or getting their own food from the kitchen, among other things.
• As a combination of the above there are events where someone else just randomly gets close to you, without any sense of having guards or other people around you. Or any sense of maybe having to cross your castle to get to you. Social differences are also often ignored.
• Events that are clearly just modern attitudes, phrases or in-jokes. Again, it doesn't need to be historical at all. That's a strawman argument. It just needs to be believable. The often criticized pop culture medievalism is better than this.
• The general lighthearted tone of the writing, even with serious events. It gives the impression that the characters don't take anything seriously. But that grounding is necessary for jokes to work. The mentioned lack of consequences also plays into this - it can seem that characters just laugh things off (that the choices are sometimes written as a punchline doesn't help). Humor can be extremely effective in even in very dark settings, but without a baseline seriousness it's just pure comedy or even outright parody.

And this isn't merely personal preference. It counteracts the stated purpose of the whole game: roleplaying. It doesn't feel like you're playing a medieval ruler in a semi-historical setting, and actively undermines immersion.

 

[Zylathas]

This. I feel like there is a defense of single events while ignoring or downplaying the systemic issues with the way events are written. Some of that was present in CK2 already, but CK3 leaned into it even more heavily, or at least didn't make a course correction.

• No sense of location. You can randomly run into people who shouldn't be there. A rival vassal in the camp is a harmless case compared to meeting someone who should be far away in their own realm - including other kings and emperors. There are also events where you somehow end up in places you shouldn't be.
• Your rulers acting like they are normal commoners. Some of that is appropriate for a small tribal chief, but why are kings and emperors drinking in the village tavern, taking strolls through town, or getting their own food from the kitchen, among other things.
• As a combination of the above there are events where someone else just randomly gets close to you, without any sense of having guards or other people around you. Or any sense of maybe having to cross your castle to get to you. Social differences are also often ignored.
• Events that are clearly just modern attitudes, phrases or in-jokes. Again, it doesn't need to be historical at all. That's a strawman argument. It just needs to be believable. The often criticized pop culture medievalism is better than this.
• The general lighthearted tone of the writing, even with serious events. It gives the impression that the characters don't take anything seriously. But that grounding is necessary for jokes to work. The mentioned lack of consequences also plays into this - it can seem that characters just laugh things off (that the choices are sometimes written as a punchline doesn't help). Humor can be extremely effective in even in very dark settings, but without a baseline seriousness it's just pure comedy or even outright parody.

And this isn't merely personal preference. It counteracts the stated purpose of the whole game: roleplaying. It doesn't feel like you're playing a medieval ruler in a semi-historical setting, and actively undermines immersion.

I think we should have something similar to Mount & Blade in terms of where characters are. So you are in one location with pretty much anyone that is there also and that's who you will interact with. If you want to go somewhere else, you move there in a few days.

And I am kinda hoping this is just what we are going to get next expansion.

 

[Gwydden]

And this isn't merely personal preference. It counteracts the stated purpose of the whole game: roleplaying. It doesn't feel like you're playing a medieval ruler in a semi-historical setting, and actively undermines immersion.

Well said. I'd put it like this: the game's elevator pitch is "Game of Thrones meets The Sims," right? It's a good one and broadly accurate. ASoIaF/GoT is not specially historical, but it fits right in with the pop culture medievalism you mention. Based on CK3's marketing materials—the trailers and descriptions for the base game and DLC—, you might assume it tries to emulate the tone of GoT, but it mostly resembles The Sims in this regard. Part of the audience, maybe even the majority, is perfectly fine with this, but if these forums are any indication, a substantial minority find it counter to their immersion.

 

[Ninaran]

Yup, we must never forget that we are by far the minority here. Posts rarely get even 100 agrees. Meanwhile on Reddit, posts about "my lesbian viking Queen killed an assassin with a recipe scroll lmao!" get thousands of up votes.

We're just not the target audience anymore. And I think we just have to accept that.

 

['Ciusi]

We're just not the target audience anymore. And I think we just have to accept that.

I have no problem accepting something like that, but developers should be honest with us. They should flat out say: "We are no longer developing this game primarily for our old fans who are seriously interested in medieval grand strategy. Our target audience is now teenage fans of The Sims and infantile jokes." In that case, I'd know to move on to another game (Old World looks very interesting indeed, I'll have to take a closer look), I wouldn't waste my money on DLCs for CK3, and I wouldn't wait years for changes that won't come. Yes, I'd be sad because I have a lot of wonderful memories of CK, but there's no point staying in a dysfunctional relationship where the other keeps promising how they'll change but nothing happens. However, just like the person in the dysfunctional relationship, I would like to give the developers one more chance. I'll see how long this approach lasts for me.

 

[InsidiousMage]

The general lighthearted tone of the writing, even with serious events. It gives the impression that the characters don't take anything seriously. But that grounding is necessary for jokes to work.

This ruins so many events for me. I'm reading it, and some small issues aside, it perfectly fine, occasionally reaching towards great, and then *BOOM* there's some dumb line in the event that just utterly ruins the whole thing and makes me feel stupid for getting interested in the first place. Recently, I've been spending a little bit of time occasionally just creating hybrid cultures, genuinely one of the best things in the game, and created a Cuman and Russian hybrid. I haven't had a culture with Mendicant Mystics before so I kept playing for a little while to see if I would one of the tradition's events. I got this. . .

Its mostly fine but that last option, how many levies does your god have, is just so. . . awful. Like, success in life and battle was directly connected to divine favor so, in theory, having an option in that direction is fine, good even, but this is just so juvenile its immersion breaking. "How many victories has your god won for his followers?" is an infinitly better line. I think I literally rolled my eyes when I read that line. Its nothing compared to this though. . .

This is the Appoint a Righteous Caliph Decision that was introduced alongside FoI. Again, generally very good, understands the gravity of the situation, and has a suitable tone throughout. Until you get to the last option. Seriously, "Take that!"? Its like the devs are compelled to add in this kind of juvenile inanity at every possible opportunity. Whats the purpose of adding this utterly childish, I was going to say insult but its not really an insult. Like, what purpose does this serve? The choice makes the other caliph your rival but "Now the world will see what it means to be truly righteous ruler!" is such a better line that accomplishes the same thing while keeping the same tone as the rest of the event while also not feeling so contemptuous towards people who want the game to take its time period seriously. And that, to me is the major issue here. I don't really think the devs are doing this, but it feels like the game is purposely design to mock the people who actually care about Medieval history. I don't want to play a game that is nothing but grim and serious the entire time but I do want to play a game that takes its subject matter seriously and treats it with respect. This doesn't mean no humor but it needs to be at the appropriate time and place, and in the correct context. This isn't the time for stupid nonsense. The event clearly understands the importance of whats going on* but, again, its like the devs are compelled to add in a bit of nonsense whenever possible. I genuinely don't understand what they think this adds to the game.

*There is supposed to be one Muslim community (the ummah) lead by one ruler (the caliph).

 

[Serenity84]

Its mostly fine but that last option, how many levies does your god have, is just so. . . awful.

This is of course a reference to a reply Stalin supposedly gave when told that the Pope would appreciate if Stalin stopped suppressing Catholics. So this is just another one of those out of place modern references. But it doesn't even get it right when attributing the levies to god. I remember the devs making this joke in a stream once when involved in a war with the Pope. In that context I found it really funny, but it doesn't belong into the actual game.

Events like that are exactly what I meant when I mentioned that event options are often written as witty punch lines. Thus turning everything into a joke. Compare this to the options in the Old World game brought up earlier. The atmosphere created by the tone is completely different.

 

[InsidiousMage]

This is of course a reference to a reply Stalin supposedly gave when told that the Pope would appreciate if Stalin stopped suppressing Catholics. So this is just another one of those out of place modern references. But it doesn't even get it right when attributing the levies to god.

That some how makes it worse.

Events like that are exactly what I meant when I mentioned that event options are often written as witty punch lines. Thus turning everything into a joke. Compare this to the options in the Old World game brought up earlier.

Old World is amazing with how it uses tone in the game. Individual events maintain tone throughout but events vary in tone and the writing is excellent so the game still feels cohesive. When you eliminate another player in the game you can trigger an event deal with it. There is a triumphalist version. . .

And a more somber version. . .

There are a bunch of great events in Old World(I can upload some more if you want) dealing with war, peace, religion, culture, and so on. They all maintain their own consistent tone in each individual event so the more lighthearted events balance out the heavier events and feel like a nice break, instead of what you get in CK3 where the flippant tone throughout ruins otherwise good events and makes it harder to care about the lighthearted elements.

 

[Olaf Trygvasson]

CK3 defenders often like to point out that CK2 had its meme events too, and they aren’t wrong. But they really were a small part of the game, especially compared to CK3. They were rare enough that when you would see one it would actually get a chuckle, instead of having the meme events vastly outnumbering the serious ones

 

[Voy]

This ruins so many events for me. I'm reading it, and some small issues aside, it perfectly fine, occasionally reaching towards great, and then *BOOM* there's some dumb line in the event that just utterly ruins the whole thing and makes me feel stupid for getting interested in the first place. Recently, I've been spending a little bit of time occasionally just creating hybrid cultures, genuinely one of the best things in the game, and created a Cuman and Russian hybrid. I haven't had a culture with Mendicant Mystics before so I kept playing for a little while to see if I would one of the tradition's events. I got this. . .

View attachment 952548

Its mostly fine but that last option, how many levies does your god have, is just so. . . awful. Like, success in life and battle was directly connected to divine favor so, in theory, having an option in that direction is fine, good even, but this is just so juvenile its immersion breaking. "How many victories has your god won for his followers?" is an infinitly better line. I think I literally rolled my eyes when I read that line. Its nothing compared to this though. . .

View attachment 952549

This is the Appoint a Righteous Caliph Decision that was introduced alongside FoI. Again, generally very good, understands the gravity of the situation, and has a suitable tone throughout. Until you get to the last option. Seriously, "Take that!"? Its like the devs are compelled to add in this kind of juvenile inanity at every possible opportunity. Whats the purpose of adding this utterly childish, I was going to say insult but its not really an insult. Like, what purpose does this serve? The choice makes the other caliph your rival but "Now the world will see what it means to be truly righteous ruler!" is such a better line that accomplishes the same thing while keeping the same tone as the rest of the event while also not feeling so contemptuous towards people who want the game to take its time period seriously. And that, to me is the major issue here. I don't really think the devs are doing this, but it feels like the game is purposely design to mock the people who actually care about Medieval history. I don't want to play a game that is nothing but grim and serious the entire time but I do want to play a game that takes its subject matter seriously and treats it with respect. This doesn't mean no humor but it needs to be at the appropriate time and place, and in the correct context. This isn't the time for stupid nonsense. The event clearly understands the importance of whats going on* but, again, its like the devs are compelled to add in a bit of nonsense whenever possible. I genuinely don't understand what they think this adds to the game.

*There is supposed to be one Muslim community (the ummah) lead by one ruler (the caliph).

I disagree. You seem to think that comedy and childishness were invented in the modern period. Anything that resembles a human flaw is deemed historically inaccurate because that's not the stories academia chose to tell. People smiled back then too, you know.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I disagree. You seem to think that comedy and childishness were invented in the modern period. Anything that resembles a human flaw is deemed historically inaccurate because that's not the stories academia chose to tell. People smiled back then too, you know.

Again, context matters! Having someone let loose a massive fart for comedic effect during a funeral in a serious, contemplative drama isn't funny, it just shows that the writer/director doesn't understand what tone is or how it works. That's the issue here! Not that there is comedy in the game but that is its in the wrong place! Events should be either "funny" or "serious," not both. That's the issue. Like, feasts are a great place for comedy! Serious religious ruptures aren't! Even with the event with the monk, it maintains a semi-serious tone throughout the event, aside from the last line which makes it incongruous with what has come before, and therefore breaks immersion. Why can't people understand this?

EDIT: For example, you could make a funny event for the Mendicant Mystics tradition but it should start along the lines of the monk stumbling into your court room, stammering and unable to compose himself before someone in the room yells an insult, or something, and then you get an option to join in the fun, as it were. This is fine because the beginning of the event establishes, and signals to the player, that is going to a comedic event, which is fine! What isn't fine is the tonal whiplash that the in-game event has. Comedy and fine, and necessary!, but it has to be in the right places with the right context.

 

[Voy]

Again, context matters! Having someone let loose a massive fart for comedic effect during a funeral is a serious, contemplative drama isn't funny, it just shows that the writer/director doesn't understand what tone is or how it works. That's the issue here! Not that there is comedy in the game but that is its in the wrong place! Events should be either "funny" or "serious," not both. That's the issue. Like, feasts are a great place for comedy! Serious religious ruptures aren't! Even with the event with the monk, it maintains a semi-serious tone throughout the event, aside from the last line which makes it incongruous with what has come before, and therefore breaks immersion. Why can't people understand this?

I don't see the issue. There are actual events that I would see completely replaced, like the tinder event and that one starts with the portraits being available like it's the 16th century. The same goes for any event that makes it seem like your castle is the same size as Versailles. But I'm not gonna take issue with localisation in events that are good. I can assure you that they did not speak English, imagine whatever period-appropriate phrase you can. But PDX here is simply translating a sentiment rulers of the past obviously were also capable of having.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I don't see the issue.

You literally don't see the problem with turning a serious theological schism into a joke?

 

[Voy]

You literally don't see the problem with turning a serious theological schism into a joke?

It doesn't make it into a joke. It's an option. Options are for RP. If you do not like it do not press it.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It doesn't make it into a joke. It's an option. Options are for RP. If you do not like it do not press it.

Do you literally think Abd al-Rahman and al-Mahdi Billah were making jokes when they were being proclaimed as Caliph? I hate to break it to you but people, then and now, took their religion seriously and wouldn't make light about serious religious matters during important religious ceremonies. Do you not understand that?

 

[Voy]

Do you literally think Abd al-Rahman and al-Mahdi Billah were making jokes when they were being proclaimed as Caliph? I hate to break it to you but people, then and now, took their religious seriously and wouldn't make light about serious religious matters during important religious ceremonies. Do you not understand that?

The likelihood that not a single proclaimed Caliph ever had a cathartic thought while being proclaimed is indeed very hard to believe for me. Because people are different. The ceremonial nature of the situation does not equate to strict thoughts. There is nothing in that event that suggests that it is spoken out loud even. And even if it was, someone feeling good about being proclaimed doesn't exclude a sense of religious importance.

Your version of history is pretty sterile if that's your hill.

 

[InsidiousMage]

The likelihood that not a single proclaimed Caliph ever had a cathartic thought while being proclaimed is indeed very hard to believe for me.

Never said they didn't!

And even if it was, someone feeling good about being proclaimed doesn't exclude a sense of religious importance.

I'm sorry but "Take that loser!" isn't the the same thing as feeling good about something.

Your version of history is pretty sterile if that's your hill.

You've literally just been ignoring the counter examples I've given, haven't you. I'm fine with levity and jokes in the game! but in the proper context and in a way that takes the beliefs of the people in the game seriously. Jokes during feasts are good! Jokes during important religious ceremonies are bad! I'm fine with an event mocking some monk or priest, if that's what the event is going to be about. Like, do not understand what context is? That's the main issue, jokes being put in any given event without considering the larger context of that event.

 

[Voy]

Never said they didn't!


I'm sorry but "Take that loser!" isn't the the same thing as feeling good about something.


You've literally just been ignoring the counter examples I've given, haven't you. I'm fine with levity and jokes in the game! but in the proper context and in a way that takes the beliefs of the people in the seriously. Jokes during feasts are good! Jokes during important religious ceremonies are bad! I'm fine with an event mocking some monk or priest, if that's what the event is going to be about. Like, do not understand what context is? That's the main issue, jokes being put in any given event without considering the larger context of that event.

I think your answer indicates that you do not see the nuance of the option. "Take that" sure is a cathartic phrase. It's a pushback. It's a good feeling of victory. The feeling is simply localised as "Take that" but the sentiment is timeless.

Again, it's such a weird thing to take issue with. We have whole event chains which have no bearing within the historical context at all. Pick your battles, mate.

 

[Tiax]

The event itself says the the character has a "heavy heart". At the very least, shouldn't the tone of the options match the exposition?

 

['Ciusi]

I don't see the issue. There are actual events that I would see completely replaced, like the tinder event and that one starts with the portraits being available like it's the 16th century. The same goes for any event that makes it seem like your castle is the same size as Versailles. But I'm not gonna take issue with localisation in events that are good. I can assure you that they did not speak English, imagine whatever period-appropriate phrase you can. But PDX here is simply translating a sentiment rulers of the past obviously were also capable of having.

I agree that the tinder event is one of the worst. Aside from being one of a huge amount of modern references that make CK3 feel very out of place overall, because there are so many of them, it doesn't follow even basic historical facts. Paintings were for a long time specifically a matter for the Church, and only holy images were painted. I think the first portrait of a ruler wasn't painted until the late 14th century.

I disagree with your defense of the events mentioned above. The phrase "Take that" is completely out of place, doesn't fit the medieval setting at all, and ruins the feel of the whole event. If they wanted to offer a response that made one feel vengeance and satisfaction, it could have been written in a completely different way.

I'm just waiting to see when one of the options in the event will be "OMG WTF LOL". After all, since people had fun in the Middle Ages too, this wouldn't be imersion breaking at all, would it? /s