69 réponses à ce sujet

[tklivory]

This topic was sparked by an outbreak of off-topicness that I engendered in another thread (while analyzing Archie's motivations, no less), and I decided I wanted to know more about the general community's feel here about the subject.

Basically, the premise is this: as in any RPG, a tension exists between allowing the player to choose the path for the PC and forcing the player's PC on a path to satisfy game mechanics.  Sometimes this tension enhances the game and moves the plot along, and sometimes it feels like a detriment to the story.  (Pretty sure we can all agree on this.)

What I'm interested in for the purposes of this thread is an opinion from my fellow forumites about:

1) Seamless merging (the game mechanics totally support the role play)
2) Irritating disparities (the game mechanics break your immersion in the role play)

You could even describe an element of gameplay that suffers from both simultaneously.

To whit, my personal favorite 'irritating disparity':
Why are we forced to revive Arl Eamon?  Several of my characters agree with Sten and don't want to traipse halfway across the world searching for some dead woman so that he can wake up when Bann Teagan is already there and could lead the Redcliffe forces to Denerim.  Granted, not having Arl Eamon would start the Warden in a weaker negotiating point at a Landsmeet, but it would have been nice to have the RP option to skip out on the Eamon and speed things up.

What drives y'all crazy about this dichotomy inherent in RPGs?

[Rakhasa]

Many, many codex entries -or rather, conversations than involve codex entries. As an example, my latest game was an elven mague. He has spend arounf 15 years in the chantry-controlled tower. He graduated yesterday. And, as mentioned, is an elf.

You can bet he knows about all five schools of magic, the laws of magic, who the heck is that Andraste woman, what is a Tranquil, who are the Templars, than elves live in alienages after they were conquered, and a whole host of other matters than you will get in the codex -but of coutse as (first time) players we will need to hear about.

[BlackEmperor]

tklivory wrote...

To whit, my personal favorite 'irritating disparity':
Why are we forced to revive Arl Eamon?  Several of my characters agree with Sten and don't want to traipse halfway across the world searching for some dead woman so that he can wake up when Bann Teagan is already there and could lead the Redcliffe forces to Denerim.  Granted, not having Arl Eamon would start the Warden in a weaker negotiating point at a Landsmeet, but it would have been nice to have the RP option to skip out on the Eamon and speed things up.

I don't actually know enough about how Landsmeets work in the world of Dragon Age, so I don't know if this would even be possible. Eamon is an Arl. Teagan is a Bann. Does Teagan even have the authority to call a Landsmeet? If he did, does he even have the fraction of support that Eamon does to get nobles to heed his call?

If they were to work out the possiblity of not reviving Eamon, you'd be in such a weak position at the Landsmeet that even giving the option doesn't make sense. Depending on the choices and arguments you make with the Landsmeet as it is, winning can be dicey. Without Anora's support, you're on a kife's edge, which requires pulling every trick in the book to get enough votes. Yes, it's not a deal-breaker to lose the Landsmeet. You still get to duel Loghain and all that jazz. But it would feel like the game is setting you up for failure by giving you the option to not wake Eamon, even if from a logistical pov going on a wild goose chase for a legendary potentially non-existent artifact is absurd at a time when the country is descending into civil war and you have a Blight on your hands. I agree that it strains credibility, but I'm not sure I'd want to change it to satisfy the RP perspective.

Since I just mentioned it in another thread, I'll add this one: from a gameplay perspective, being confronted by Ser Cauthrien and a platoon of soldiers after killing Howe makes for (depending on how you play it) either a great, tense battle, or a great set-up for a fun side-quest. From an RP perspective, it makes no sense that she was able to respond so quickly and somehow magically knows that you killed Howe just minutes earlier.

Another obvious one: revealing that the grey warden who slays the archdemon dies makes for a great twist, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that it's been kept a secret for as long as it has in the game.

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

I don't actually know enough about how Landsmeets work in the world of Dragon Age, so I don't know if this would even be possible. Eamon is an Arl. Teagan is a Bann. Does Teagan even have the authority to call a Landsmeet? If he did, does he even have the fraction of support that Eamon does to get nobles to heed his call?

If they were to work out the possiblity of not reviving Eamon, you'd be in such a weak position at the Landsmeet that even giving the option doesn't make sense. Depending on the choices and arguments you make with the Landsmeet as it is, winning can be dicey. Without Anora's support, you're on a kife's edge, which requires pulling every trick in the book to get enough votes. Yes, it's not a deal-breaker to lose the Landsmeet. You still get to duel Loghain and all that jazz. But it would feel like the game is setting you up for failure by giving you the option to not wake Eamon, even if from a logistical pov going on a wild goose chase for a legendary potentially non-existent artifact is absurd at a time when the country is descending into civil war and you have a Blight on your hands. I agree that it strains credibility, but I'm not sure I'd want to change it to satisfy the RP perspective.

Oh, I'm working on a heck of a lot of assumptions, here.  However, the Landsmeet seems to represent a form of government through consesnsus.  Might it have been possible (especially due to the looming civil war) to contact the Banns to gather in Denerim even if the official call hadn't gone out?

Also, I was thinking from an RP perspective as well.  Outside of DN and HN, the other origins wouldn't know about the mechanics of the Landsmeet either.  Why not at least have a dialogue option of 'Denerim now, wakey Eamon later' that you would then get slapped down for by Teagan?

Another option would be to declare Eamon incapable of retaining his authority and give the title of Arl to Teagan (or Conner, and make Teagan his Regent).  I mean, if an lost ancient holy relic is the only possible cure for a ruling noble, I would think that a country as pragmatic as Fereldan would understand the need for a lucid & conscious leader in a time of civil war/Blight.  That would allow Teagan to call the Landsmeet (if an Arl is required).  In the cutscene where Teagan calls Loghain on the carpet, it appears as if the other Banns at least respect him enough to give his words weight.

I'm just a little upset that that isn't given as an option.  I could see some of my more persuasive Wardens being silver-tongued enough to bring Teagan about to their way of seeing things.

BlackEmperor wrote...

Another obvious one: revealing that the grey warden who slays the archdemon dies makes for a great twist, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that it's been kept a secret for as long as it has in the
game.

**This.  MAKER, this.  I mean, Riordan has a nice long discussion with you about the Wardens prior to the Landsmeet and DOESN'T TELL YOU?   Aargh, what is this, I don't... *shakes tiny fist in rage*

Modifié par tklivory, 16 octobre 2011 - 11:15 .

[BlackEmperor]

tklivory wrote...

Also, I was thinking from an RP perspective as well.  Outside of DN and HN, the other origins wouldn't know about the mechanics of the Landsmeet either.  Why not at least have a dialogue option of 'Denerim now, wakey Eamon later' that you would then get slapped down for by Teagan?

A dialogue option to at least ask about it couldn't have hurt. To at least be given the option of mentioning it.

Another option would be to declare Eamon incapable of retaining his authority and give the title of Arl to Teagan (or Conner, and make Teagan his Regent).  I mean, if an lost ancient holy relic is the only possible cure for a ruling noble, I would think that a country as pragmatic as Fereldan would understand the need for a lucid & conscious leader in a time of civil war/Blight.

Err, yes. Isn't this the argument Loghain uses? It would be tough to use Loghain's argument against Loghain, no? Declaring Eamon incapable of ruling would seem like a power grab on Teagan's part in the same way that Loghain's power move does. In other words, it carries the same risk of undercutting his authority--the very issue that making Teagan an arl was supposed to solve.

Since we've talking about issues where gameplay undercuts roleplaying, let me provide a counter-example, where RP disrupts gameplay: the decision of whether or not to save Redcliffe.

Depending on your character and his/her motivations (I'm looking at you, dalish elf origin), there could be an excellent RP reason to not save Redcliffe. Players who take this option often complain of feeling cheated though, like the game shouldn't give you the option considering the consequences. The counter-argument is that you make the choice, you suffer the consequences of that choice, but not saving Redcliff is just not a viable gameplay option in terms of xp and loot--especially when you factor in a host of side quests that are not available to you if you decide to take this route.

My concern is giving an option to not search for the urn of sacred ashes and wake eamon is along the lines of not saving Redcliffe: it's something that opts you out of playing part of the game, which is not in any way satisfying. In an effort to keep gameplay from disrupting roleplaying, roleplaying ends up disrupting gameplay.

[BlackEmperor]

Rakhasa wrote...

You can bet he knows about all five schools of magic, the laws of magic, who the heck is that Andraste woman, what is a Tranquil, who are the Templars, than elves live in alienages after they were conquered, and a whole host of other matters than you will get in the codex -but of coutse as (first time) players we will need to hear about.

One of the best examples of this disparity in the mage origin is talking to Senior Enchanter Leorah, when she explains the system of tunnels the tower is built on and concludes by saying, "But of course you know this." Yes, I do--but on the other hand, no, I don't.

[blothulfur]

I really wanted to join Loghain and support the rightful queen especially after saving Redcliffe, the castle above, the Arls son, the Arl himself and even ridding him of that Orlesian harpy and in return recieving a poxy shield.

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

Since we've talking about issues where gameplay undercuts roleplaying, let me provide a counter-example, where RP disrupts gameplay: the decision of whether or not to save Redcliffe.

Depending on your character and his/her motivations (I'm looking at you, dalish elf origin), there could be an excellent RP reason to not save Redcliffe. Players who take this option often complain of feeling cheated though, like the game shouldn't give you the option considering the consequences. The counter-argument is that you make the choice, you suffer the consequences of that choice, but not saving Redcliff is just not a viable gameplay option in terms of xp and loot--especially when you factor in a host of side quests that are not available to you if you decide to take this route.

My concern is giving an option to not search for the urn of sacred ashes and wake eamon is along the lines of not saving Redcliffe: it's something that opts you out of playing part of the game, which is not in any way satisfying. In an effort to keep gameplay from disrupting roleplaying, roleplaying ends up disrupting gameplay.

Unless they had subtituted a different quest line - gathering the Banns prior to the Landsmeet, for example, to be a quest, rather than doing the Urn of Sacred Ashes.  Of course something like that would take additonal development time, additional resources, etc - and probably wasn't conceived by the writers.

However, at one point in development of the game, based on the files, it was clear that it would have been possible at one point to have both Loghain and Alistair in the party at the same time (possibly due to an earlier Landsmeet option).  After all, all you need for the Landsmeet is Eamon (*sigh*), not the Dalish/werewolves/dwarves/whatever.  Why for the Lansdmeet to be the final event?  Apparently it wasn't always so.  This would have been an *awesome* RP option to have, especially since so many people complain that Alistair's departure after Loghain is spared is so whiny/OOC/ whatever.  The ability to retain Loghain and Alistair with some more dialogue options would have enhanced the RP significantly - but the idea was scrapped due to budget, and thus, the choice between Alistair vs Loghain became an either/or game mechanic rather than an one-or-both dynamic and the Landsmeet was relegated to a forced final place.  Hell I would have welcomed an option to kill Loghain *and* exile/crown Alistair but remove him from the party anyway, simply because one of my Wardens would have taken that option.

*Grips self and returns to original point*

Redcliffe is an excellent example of RP affecting game mechanics.  However, I don't see it necessarily opting out of playing the game so much as following a character's choice to not walk down that particular path at a fork in the road.  If you choose not to do the Chantry board quests, are you opting out of gameplay?  Possibly, but if you're RPing a character who refuses to help the Chantry in any way, it is an opt out that makes sense in line with the character.  Sure, you lose out on XP/items/sotry, but it is an option.

The beauty of DA:O is that you can do as much (or as little) of the game as you wish *except* where game mechanics and RP collide and force the Treaty/Eamon/Landsmeet quests.  Granted, by this line of reasoning, you could opt out of any of the major quests as well, but why not have a "you suck, you shoulda done that" kind of ending where Archive actually wins because you couldn't get your lazy ass around to all the disparate parts of Fereldan and gather your army?  And I would have seen this a *brilliant* final b**** slap to a player who decided not to wake Eamon and go it alone.  (aside from the screams of people reloading old saves, that is )

That's why game design is so fascinating to me, as a (well-designed) game is full of these give and takes between what they'd *like* to do and how it is limited by what they *are able* to do.

Aaaand long-winded rant is long-winded.  My apologies.

Modifié par tklivory, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:37 .

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

Rakhasa wrote...

You can bet he knows about all five schools of magic, the laws of magic, who the heck is that Andraste woman, what is a Tranquil, who are the Templars, than elves live in alienages after they were conquered, and a whole host of other matters than you will get in the codex -but of coutse as (first time) players we will need to hear about.

One of the best examples of this disparity in the mage origin is talking to Senior Enchanter Leorah, when she explains the system of tunnels the tower is built on and concludes by saying, "But of course you know this." Yes, I do--but on the other hand, no, I don't.

Or the whole 'it is forbidden for templars/sisters and mages to canoodle'.  You learn that through convo with Jowan - otherwise there's no indication of it.  Yet it is the core of the entire plot of the mage origin.

[MyNameIsPower]

tklivory wrote...

Granted, not having Arl Eamon would start the Warden in a weaker negotiating point at a Landsmeet, but it would have been nice to have the RP option to skip out on the Eamon and speed things up.

What drives y'all crazy about this dichotomy inherent in RPGs?

Speed things up?  The purpose of this game is to tell a story.  In order to do that, certain things *must* happen.  It's the nature of the beast.

Now, here's one of my pet peeves:

You are forced to walk into a room with ranked baddies you know are going to attack you.  You are not allowed to attack them as you would normal foes ... through walls, etc.  You basically are prevented from ambushing. 

So, after entering the room, they say something like "Hey, you shouldn't be here!  I'm going to kill you now!"  LOL.  Yes, I know.  Sometimes, you stay where you are, but other times, the game places you and your other team members right in front of the bad guy, even though you strategically placed them around the room to do the best damage or keep them from harm. 

Now, THAT is immersion breaking.

[BlackEmperor]

tklivory wrote...

Unless they had subtituted a different quest line - gathering the Banns prior to the Landsmeet, for example, to be a quest, rather than doing the Urn of Sacred Ashes.  Of course something like that would take additonal development time, additional resources, etc - and probably wasn't conceived by the writers.

True. Same goes for saving Redcliffe. If there was more to it that fighting zombies with names, it'd probably be more interesting to go the route of not saving it. I might actually try it then. It's just a matter of what you want to create with the time and resources you have. You can only have quests branch out in so many ways.

Redcliffe is an excellent example of RP affecting game mechanics.  However, I don't see it necessarily opting out of playing the game so much as following a character's choice to not walk down that particular path at a fork in the road.  If you choose not to do the Chantry board quests, are you opting out of gameplay?  Possibly, but if you're RPing a character who refuses to help the Chantry in any way, it is an opt out that makes sense in line with the character.  Sure, you lose out on XP/items/sotry, but it is an option.

It's not just the Chantry quests though, it's also the Blackstone Irregulars and the Mage's Collective. It's a broad enough of a subtraction that it's more likely to hit you no matter what type of character you're playing. It wouldn't be so bad if the quests that appeared on those boards instead showed up elsewhere, but a lot of them don't. In particular, not being able to get the Blackstone Irregular quests here locks you out of the final quest for that series. You end up feeling cheated because, if you're playing for the first time and haven't read the wiki or something, you have no idea just how much gameplay you're missing out on (since those boards aren't there pre-nightfall attack). It feels like you're being unfairly punished for something the game was perfectly willing to let you do.

It's not like how you lose out on access to Varathorn if you side with the werewolves, because you can reasonably assume that the "kill all the elves" option includes Varathorn. And, well, everyone else in that camp.

I guess short answer is--they should've just made it so those board quests show up elsewhere. Let the evil characters have their fun with abandoning Redcliffe.

The beauty of DA:O is that you can do as much (or as little) of the game as you wish *except* where game mechanics and RP collide and force the Treaty/Eamon/Landsmeet quests. Granted, by this line of reasoning, you could opt out of any of the major quests as well, but why not have a "you suck, you shoulda done that" kind of ending where Archive actually wins because you couldn't get your lazy ass around to all the disparate parts of Fereldan and gather your army?  And I would have seen this a *brilliant* final b**** slap to a player who decided not to wake Eamon and go it alone.  (aside from the screams of people reloading old saves, that is )

I was just going to bring up how you could have a main quest opt-out that gave you an auto-fail result. But from an RP perspective, giving up on one any one of those treaties for the sake of time could appear reasonable. You're worried about taking a couple extra weeks to go to the mages tower to request help from the mages? Or all the time spent searching for the ashes? What about all the time you spend scouring the Deep Roads looking for a paragon to put a king on the throne? Surely that comes across as just as much of a crazy waste of time. That's the problem with allowing these kinds of choices. It's disingenuous to have a game that says, "Hurry up! A Blight is coming!" but also says, "You lose! You should've taken the time to do everything."

On a side note, a game that did do something like this was the first Golden Sun game for the GBA. After an initial starting quest that establishes the story and characters (basically the equivalent of an origin story) a major disaster happens, which sets the stage for the classic "hero's call to action" where you're given the option: will you try to save the world? Yes / No.

And it's a legitimate option to choose "No." At which point you walk away, the screen freezes, turns black and white, and you get an epilogue basically saying, "And so the world began to slide toward its inevitable destruction." Done. Game over.

But then it prompts you, "Hey, do you want to go back to the part right before you said no?" Which makes it not really much of a choice. It's just an illusion of a choice. But no more of an illusion of a choice then if not doing all the treaties in Origins means you automatically lose.

[BlackEmperor]

MyNameIsPower wrote...

So, after entering the room, they say something like "Hey, you shouldn't be here!  I'm going to kill you now!"  LOL.  Yes, I know.  Sometimes, you stay where you are, but other times, the game places you and your other team members right in front of the bad guy, even though you strategically placed them around the room to do the best damage or keep them from harm. 

Now, THAT is immersion breaking.

On top of the fact that such a cut-scene automatically breaks you out of stealth. And auto shuts off your blood magic if you had that on prior in preparation to use Blood Wound. Which means they're now on cool down while you try to come up with a backup plan.

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

But then it prompts you, "Hey, do you want to go back to the part right before you said no?" Which makes it not really much of a choice. It's just an illusion of a choice. But no more of an illusion of a choice then if not doing all the treaties in Origins means you automatically lose.

Love Golden Sun.  Best ending ever!

Of course, illusion of choice is built in.  And why would the Treaty quests mean you automatically lose?  (re-reads my own post)  Oh, yeah, I guess I did write that.  Sorry.  I didn't mean to imply that skipping  Treaty/Eamon quests should have meant an automatic loss, I just meant that it would have been interesting if losing to Archie was possible with more than just a 'you have died' screen, like it was as a result of you slacking in your Warden duties.  Maybe skipping Treaty quests could have left certain flags unchanged?  Maybe it would make more interesting if skipping those quests mean you 'lose' the Landsmeet?  I dunno.  I like to speculate, and constantly analyze games from a "Why?  Why NOT?" perspective, and sometimes I end up in dead ends, sometimes I don't. :happy:

Oh, and talking about consequence for a moment: why do 2 of the 3 choices during Conner's quest have consequences of someone dying, but the 3rd doesn't?  Especially when that 3rd choice involves a time lapse of traipsing to the Tower, getting the mages, then going back to Redcliffe.  What, Conner and his little perky demon sat in his room the whole time?

Always ponderd that as well...

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

MyNameIsPower wrote...

So, after entering the room, they say something like "Hey, you shouldn't be here!  I'm going to kill you now!"  LOL.  Yes, I know.  Sometimes, you stay where you are, but other times, the game places you and your other team members right in front of the bad guy, even though you strategically placed them around the room to do the best damage or keep them from harm. 

Now, THAT is immersion breaking.

On top of the fact that such a cut-scene automatically breaks you out of stealth. And auto shuts off your blood magic if you had that on prior in preparation to use Blood Wound. Which means they're now on cool down while you try to come up with a backup plan.

Ooh, I always hated going into Howe's dungeon level because of this.  I'd forget and stealth up, and end up waiting for cooldown.

[tklivory]

MyNameIsPower wrote...

Speed things up?  The purpose of this game is to tell a story.  In order to do that, certain things *must* happen.  It's the nature of the beast.

Exactly - the game mechanics of needing to tell the story automatically overrides the RP desire to not help Eamon (or make Teagan Arl, whatever other weird things could happen) if your Warden (in character) doesn't want to do so.  The nature of the game/story beast overrides the nature of the RolePlaying beast in this instance.  It happens in all games, RPG or no, just wanted to see if other people saw any other parts of the game this way or not.

(I didn't say it was the best example!)

[BlackEmperor]

tklivory wrote...

Maybe skipping Treaty quests could have left certain flags unchanged?  Maybe it would make more interesting if skipping those quests mean you 'lose' the Landsmeet?  I dunno.  I like to speculate, and constantly analyze games from a "Why?  Why NOT?" perspective, and sometimes I end up in dead ends, sometimes I don't. :happy:

Oh, and talking about consequence for a moment: why do 2 of the 3 choices during Conner's quest have consequences of someone dying, but the 3rd doesn't?  Especially when that 3rd choice involves a time lapse of traipsing to the Tower, getting the mages, then going back to Redcliffe.  What, Conner and his little perky demon sat in his room the whole time?

Always ponderd that as well...

Losing the Landsmeet is not as detrimental as losing the game to the archdemon. Idk, if you don't have Anora's support it's really easy to lose the Landsmeet as it is, as I found out. How many ways do you need to have of losing the Landsmeet?

Could you give me a scenario where losing to the archdemon... makes sense? Like, how it would happen? I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how that would work.

I do get what you're saying about Connor's quest. You'd think there be at least a few extra hoops to jump through / damage done if you took the time to seek out the Circle's help, as opposed to being the "everyone's happy, no real consequences" option. Hey, if I'm a mage, how about Jowan show me how to do the blood magic ritual, and I sacrifice him to perform it? Or have Morrigan perform it to send me into the Fade. She'd have no objections.

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

Losing the Landsmeet is not as detrimental as losing the game to the archdemon. Idk, if you don't have Anora's support it's really easy to lose the Landsmeet as it is, as I found out. How many ways do you need to have of losing the Landsmeet?

Could you give me a scenario where losing to the archdemon... makes sense? Like, how it would happen? I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how that would work.

I do get what you're saying about Connor's quest. You'd think there be at least a few extra hoops to jump through / damage done if you took the time to seek out the Circle's help, as opposed to being the "everyone's happy, no real consequences" option. Hey, if I'm a mage, how about Jowan show me how to do the blood magic ritual, and I sacrifice him to perform it? Or have Morrigan perform it to send me into the Fade. She'd have no objections.

When I said losing the Landsmeet, I meant losing the ability to be able to put Alistair on the throne or marrying Anora yourself (if HNM), even you if win the pitched battle with Loghain.  In that case, Anora would definitely be Queen, and the writing could have been expanded to include her executing Alistair (and, likely Eamon) without you being able to stop her, but Loghain allowing you and Riordan (for some reason, don't know what) to fight against the Darkspawn.  Or, even, having the game end at the Landsmeet because you can't persuade them and are executed as a traitor.  True, you could still load a prior save, but you'd have to load farther back than just before the Landsmeet to fix the error that prevents you from being able to influence the Landsmeet sufficiently.
Losing to Archie = Darkspawn Chronicles! It just hit me!  That's where those evil developers got the idea from!

Part of the problem in trying to explain the nebulous ideas in my head lies in the fact that we can't 'lose' in games anymore.  We can always reload.  Maybe instead of losing to the Archdemon, an party member could permanently die?  Or you defeat the Archie, but Denerim is completely lost?

Hmmm, now that I think about it instead of 'losing' to the Archdemon, a consequence would make a lot more sense.  Granted the consequences in this case would mean epilogue slides and flags left unchecked in the character file for future imports (and we saw how well that turned out for Awakenings/DA2), but at least it would be a reflection of the lack of action.  So if you didn't do the Mage Quest, it talks about how the Rite of Annulment was used and everyone in the tower was wiped out.  Something like that?  Or if you don't go to Orzammar, it talks about how a civil war enguled the dwarven lands, and as a consequence they were overwhelmed and Orzammar was lost to Darkspawn after the Blight and all the Darkspawn returned to the Deep Roads?

Not very punishing to gameplay, but at least a real story consequence?  And of course, the cosequence in gameplay would result from a weaker character and thus more challengin gameplay (as in, you don't do those quests, then you literally can't defeat Archie cuz you just ain't good enough).

[MyNameIsPower]

tklivory wrote...

Oh, and talking about consequence for a moment: why do 2 of the 3 choices during Conner's quest have consequences of someone dying, but the 3rd doesn't?  Especially when that 3rd choice involves a time lapse of traipsing to the Tower, getting the mages, then going back to Redcliffe.  What, Conner and his little perky demon sat in his room the whole time?

Always ponderd that as well...

Yes, this was discussed elsewhere a week ago.  Several people had strong opinions either way ... whether or not that 3rd choice was really feasible.

I did not opt for that choice, from an RP perspective, because it just didn't seem logical.  As a matter of fact, I believe I used the word "traipsing" in that thread.

[BlackEmperor]

tklivory wrote...

Losing to Archie = Darkspawn Chronicles! It just hit me!  That's where those evil developers got the idea from!

Part of the problem in trying to explain the nebulous ideas in my head lies in the fact that we can't 'lose' in games anymore.  We can always reload.  Maybe instead of losing to the Archdemon, an party member could permanently die?  Or you defeat the Archie, but Denerim is completely lost?

Hmmm, now that I think about it instead of 'losing' to the Archdemon, a consequence would make a lot more sense.  Granted the consequences in this case would mean epilogue slides and flags left unchecked in the character file for future imports (and we saw how well that turned out for Awakenings/DA2), but at least it would be a reflection of the lack of action.  So if you didn't do the Mage Quest, it talks about how the Rite of Annulment was used and everyone in the tower was wiped out.  Something like that?  Or if you don't go to Orzammar, it talks about how a civil war enguled the dwarven lands, and as a consequence they were overwhelmed and Orzammar was lost to Darkspawn after the Blight and all the Darkspawn returned to the Deep Roads?

But of course you're not "losing" to Archie in the Darkspawn Chronicles because you're playing as the darkspawn. It's the same thing of not being able to lose with reversed roles.

Could we ever "lose" in games though? Nearly all games have the ability to save, even if there are restrictions (can only save in towns, not dungeons, or being unable to save in combat). Or they have checkpoints that you get kicked back to if you die, which are basically auto-saves. The only games where dying truly meant that things were really done, start from the beginning again, are games like Mario. And the whole "lives" system doesn't really lend itself to RP immersion either.

Story consequences make much better sense if you're going that route of missing major things. Like how recruiting the dalish increases their prestige in human lands because they helped save Denerim. But if they're not recruited they might be treated with even more scorn because humans think they're taking advantage of Fereldan's weakened condition. And the werewolf curse becomes ever more widepsread. That said, I still don't think anyone would reasonably take the option to just not do a major quest for gameplay reasons of missing out on loot and xp. Like saving Redcliffe, it just doesn't add up to not do it, even if you can perceive of an RP reason of why you would.

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

But of course you're not "losing" to Archie in the Darkspawn Chronicles because you're playing as the darkspawn. It's the same thing of not being able to lose with reversed roles.

Nah, I just meant that that's the only way to 'lose' to Archie due to...

BlackEmperor wrote...
Could we ever "lose" in games though? Nearly all games have the ability to save, even if there are restrictions (can only save in towns, not dungeons, or being unable to save in combat). Or they have checkpoints that you get kicked back to if you die, which are basically auto-saves. The only games where dying truly meant that things were really done, start from the beginning again, are games like Mario. And the whole "lives" system doesn't really lend itself to RP immersion either.

...which is why I think the devs came up with DSC, to give the PC an idea of what losing to Archie would actually feel like without 1) discrediting their PC from the main campaign and 2) not actually losing as the protagonist.

BlackEmperor wrote...
Story consequences make much better sense if you're going that route of missing major things. Like how recruiting the dalish increases their prestige in human lands because they helped save Denerim. But if they're not recruited they might be treated with even more scorn because humans think they're taking advantage of Fereldan's weakened condition. And the werewolf curse becomes ever more widepsread. That said, I still don't think anyone would reasonably take the option to just not do a major quest for gameplay reasons of missing out on loot and xp. Like saving Redcliffe, it just doesn't add up to not do it, even if you can perceive of an RP reason of why you would.

No, they wouldn't take the option to not do it - since they've been playing a game that has made all of these quests mandatory.  Once you've played the game as presented, of course all these elements seem necessary.  I ponder the GM vs RP conundrum from the perspective of "what if literally you could do what you wanted?"  As I said, analyzing game design is in figuring out the "why not?" more than "why?".  I'm never heard of a truly open-ended game (not even sandbox games are as open as they tout), and I love digging in and trying to figure out "why make *these* moments mandatory?" (i.e., game mechanics-oriented decision) and "why make *these* moments optional?" (i.e., RP/grinding/achievement hunter/&tc-oriented decision).

Or alternatively, "why make these mandatory moments so limited?" (like, you *have* to have Eamon, even though the Bannhammer *could* have been elevated to Arl, or you *could* have had Loghain and Alistair in your party simultaneously if they'd had time/budget to program the Landsmeet to take place earlier in the game).

I guess part of the issue is that it seems that every major Treaty Quest you get a major decision between allies (mages/Templars, werewolves/Dalish, Bhelen/Harrowmont).  Seems odd you only get Eamon.  Of course, it could be successfully argued that the real choice is the defend/don't defend Redcliffe, or how to deal with the Conner situation, but neither of those determines who your ultimate ally is.

In the end, it's just specualtion and hindsight analytics.  But I have a strange mind and like looking under the surface and "what if's", and DA:O simply provides more vectors for analysis of "what if's" than most games, so it seems sad to me when some of those "What if's" aren't allowed due to non-RP constraints...

Modifié par tklivory, 18 octobre 2011 - 01:37 .

[BlackEmperor]

Allow me to switch gears. The other half of the topic is areas where the gameplay seamlessly merges with the roleplaying, and I haven't mentioned any instances of that yet.

I think a great example of this is the entire quest line for A Paragon of Her Kind. You have two options of who to support for king, but the options aren't black and white. Both are firmly in the gray area in terms of morality, forcing you to decide whether the ends justify the means. Both choices involve infiltrating the carta and searching for Branka, but both Behlen and Harrowmont legitimately have something to gain by both actions. It keeps the quest lines from branching too much without feeling like you lack choice. Better yet, you're not beholden to your choice. You can switch from supporting one to the other, and even switch back after that. Again, maintaining your ability to choose without having to go crazy with making two wholly different quest lines.

Same deal with the Anvil choice. You can choose to support Cairidin, or choose to support Branka, or choose to support Branka and then convince her to destroy the Anvil anway. Which allows for four possible outcomes--Behlen with the Anvil, Behlen without the Anvil, Harrowmont with the Anvil, Harrowmont without the Anvil. Each of which has its own unique spin storywise, allowing for real flexibility from an RP perspective.

If I could fault it for anything, it's that the "isolationist" aspect of Harrowmont and the "reformer" aspect of Behlen aren't really played up too well. It's not until the epilogue that those come through (not that there aren't a lot of hints dropped by the people of Orzammar).

This makes it my favorite treaty quest of the game. And the one I always have the most difficulty in making a decision.

[Zaxarus]

Some things i missed in the game in respect of my RP:

- discussion choices:
there are so many conversation points with all possible answers feeling false to mo. Often a simple "i agree" is missing. or in denerim, Loghain speaks with Eamon, Cauthrien critizises the warden (don't speak to your betters): some of my figures (surely not my HN or DN) feel she is right, so why can't i stay silent?
Or: Castle redcliffe, you chose Morrigan to go into the fade, "you could have asked me before"; Yes Morrigan, i would like it if i could. But no dialogue option. In my fanfic i used something the line: "Morrigan, would you do it please, i owe you a boon." which will later be revisited in the grimoire line.

- companions
why is it often not possible to explain my companions why it chose a specific action? or that i'm lying to someone ("you know, i SAID the dragon cultists i would spoil the ashes, but i never would DO it"). surely a leliana/wynne would understand the definition of a trick
--> i really liked the scene in DA2 with the pirates: warden to pirate: there is a fire; merrill: oh, i don't saw one; warden: Merrill, that was a trick; Merrill: oh, that was clever; pirate: attack

- allies
why have they no impact on the landsmeet? i'm sure it would make a difference if the ambassador of the new dwarfen king stands up and declares his support. with the allies having no influence on the landsmeet it would really be more sensible to replace Loghain as soon as possible. even in the battle of denerim it would be enough to have 1 ally. no real change if you have more.

- kodex
i really have no idea how it could be better solved, this discrepancy between character knowledge and player knowledge. it is disturbing, what else would be possible. one answer could be to integrate more scenes like the one with Hahren and you relating history to the dalish youth.

Modifié par Zaxarus, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:20 .

[tklivory]

BlackEmperor wrote...

Allow me to switch gears. The other half of the topic is areas where the gameplay seamlessly merges with the roleplaying, and I haven't mentioned any instances of that yet.

I think a great example of this is the entire quest line for A Paragon of Her Kind. You have two options of who to support for king, but the options aren't black and white. Both are firmly in the gray area in terms of morality, forcing you to decide whether the ends justify the means. Both choices involve infiltrating the carta and searching for Branka, but both Behlen and Harrowmont legitimately have something to gain by both actions. It keeps the quest lines from branching too much without feeling like you lack choice. Better yet, you're not beholden to your choice. You can switch from supporting one to the other, and even switch back after that. Again, maintaining your ability to choose without having to go crazy with making two wholly different quest lines.

Same deal with the Anvil choice. You can choose to support Cairidin, or choose to support Branka, or choose to support Branka and then convince her to destroy the Anvil anway. Which allows for four possible outcomes--Behlen with the Anvil, Behlen without the Anvil, Harrowmont with the Anvil, Harrowmont without the Anvil. Each of which has its own unique spin storywise, allowing for real flexibility from an RP perspective.

If I could fault it for anything, it's that the "isolationist" aspect of Harrowmont and the "reformer" aspect of Behlen aren't really played up too well. It's not until the epilogue that those come through (not that there aren't a lot of hints dropped by the people of Orzammar).

This makes it my favorite treaty quest of the game. And the one I always have the most difficulty in making a decision.

Excellent example.  To an extent, this is also present in the Mage Tower, where you are given an opportunity to tell Greagoir that you will either wipe out all life in the Tower, or try to save the mages, but are presented with points along the way to the Harrowing chamber that reaffirm or encourage you to change that decision.  Do you kill or recruit Wynne?  Do you kill the Desire Demon or allow her to leave with the Templar?  Do you agree with Cullen or tell him that you won't kill everything blindly.

And when you do reach the Harrowing Chamber, you still have to not use the Litany and wait for Irving to be turned into an abomination to acquire the Templars as allies in the final battle.  I remember one game where I did the Tower quest last of my Treaty quests, so my players were pretty ridiculously powerful by the time I got to the final battle of the Mage Tower.  Since I was RP'ing a very anti-mage character, I literally had to disable my party's tactics (except for healing, of course) and use my PC to kill the abominations as they were created until finally Irving was transformed.  Then I was able to enable my party to fight again and kill Uldred.  It was kind of bizarre.

[tklivory]

Zaxarus wrote...

Some things i missed in the game in respect of my RP:

- discussion choices:
there are so many conversation points with all possible answers feeling false to mo. Often a simple "i agree" is missing. or in denerim, Loghain speaks with Eamon, Cauthrien critizises the warden (don't speak to your betters): some of my figures (surely not my HN or DN) feel she is right, so why can't i stay silent?
Or: Castle redcliffe, you chose Morrigan to go into the fade, "you could have asked me before"; Yes Morrigan, i would like it if i could. But no dialogue option. In my fanfic i used something the line: "Morrigan, would you do it please, i owe you a boon." which will later be revisited in the grimoire line.

Yeah, I've felt the same way about the 'hardening' responses for Alistair and Leliana.  In the vanilla game (yay mods!) I don't like the choices provided to harden those characters, even though I've RPed Wardens that would want those 2 to be hardened to be able to deal with things down the line (hardened Alistair to make him a better Kind because my PC wasn't going to stick around to help him and didn't want Eamon/Anora to have too much power, or hardened Leliana because my PC was a little more ruthless and wanted that in his partner).  Some alternate lines would have been nice, or different ways to harden them.  (I mean, you can *only* harden Alistair after talking to Goldanna?  And not, say, after the whole Conner debacle?  both would seem appropriate times.  *shrugs*)

[Corker]

BlackEmperor wrote...

It's not just the Chantry quests though, it's also the Blackstone Irregulars and the Mage's Collective. It's a broad enough of a subtraction that it's more likely to hit you no matter what type of character you're playing.

I've done speed play-throughs where I've ignored the majority of the "Board" quests after Lothering, as well as some side quests like "Something Wicked" (the Alienage orphanage).  (My Surana was very task-focused.  ) It didn't hurt me none, and my Wardens still finished at higher than 20th level.