591 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

Then why play?

Same reason you'd read V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Sin City, The Walking Dead, Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, etc.
Same reason you'd watch Donnie Darko, Braveheart, Deep Space Nine, The Wire, Saving Private Ryan, etc.

Kileyan wrote...

Why is that a good thing?

Because when you can't decide which choice is the right one, it actually becomes a choice. People would've agonized and constantly debated over Connor if they didn't have the third option of saving him without cost, instead we've got everyone and their mother insulting others for not picking that option.

Same thing if you tell people you don't cure the werewolves.

I can't speak for anyone else, but once I start getting the sinking feeling that everything I choose will backfire on me or be a wrong choice, I stop caring and just click a choice, tap the space bar fast as I can to skip the cutscene. I lose interest, and it become just a race to see how fast I can get past the non choices and endless chatter, and get on with the combat engine.

So you have little interest in the game unless it serves it's purpose as wish fufillment and feeling like a badass hero? I can recommend plenty of other games.

I don't know if any of you even have a background in pen n paper gaming, but when a story teller/dungeon master has that kind of attitude vs players, when they start seeing the trend that no matter what choice they make, it is the bad one, the players stop caring, stop feeling like they are part of the world, and just want to fast forward the talky bits of the game and go find the treasure.

Sorry but that's bull****. I've played dungeon master repeatedly these past few years and I've had my friends do heated debates over which was the correct path to take, they never decide to go "WELL WHO CARES" because that's an immature response to being confronted with a decision.

I'm asking them to weigh the pro and cons of each choice, not dismiss them. If they abandon their post to save their best friend, their friend is alive but they shouldn't be surprised when their post was overrun without the group to help defend it. Nor are they surprised their friend died if they abandoned them in the orc camp to defend the post.

They've never gone "WHO CARES, LET'S GO TREASURE HUNT"--that's hardly in the spirit of the game and is dismisses everything to do with the narrative.

It is a fine line and not easy to do, but the story teller or dev, can ruin an experience if the relationship between the player and the person telling to story becomes adversarial.

Not all stories accomdate to everyone. Dozens of people stopped reading ASOIAF after the first book, doesn't mean the series is bad.

Kileyan wrote...

Sure you can beat the big bad Mage and his body guards...........btw, your wife and the rest of your immediate family were killed by a curse he placed upon them.

Making hyberbolic statements about bittersweet writing serves no-one.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 novembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[TheJediSaint]

Whether or not an ending is "bittersweet" or "happy" is irrelevant in regards for how good it is. An ending's quality is more a question of if it suits the story being told, and if it's well done.

[BlueMagitek]

Kileyan wrote...

I'm sorry Blue, didn't mean to confuse you. I was talking more in generalities about idea that every action must have an opposite and equal reaction style of consequences. That is just weird to me. Choosing a good thing demands a bad thing must happen because Thedas is bleak?

If the story demands that everytime you save some peasants from bandits, something terrible happens, then go for it if it means something to the story. If it becomes a repeated theme for no other reason than people think every good act must have a consequence because it doesn't reward the players who let the peasants die, then that is bad story telling and bad game design.

Again, that type of design becomes just as predicable as the shining hero stories that many seem to loathe. Once you get the feeling that nothing matters, no matter what you do, its a net zero sum, it becomes a story experience where you feel no control..........just pick a color coded choice and go kill some stuff!

Alright.  Say you give an elf some coin in the Denerim marketplace and the Elf is beaten up by some humans for it.  You did a good thing, but not a smart thing.  Even the most casual observer would note that the elves are horribly mistreated by humans, so just giving him coin would just draw ire of humans if you do so in the middle of Denerim.  The same thing may not happen in the Alienage (though it may attract even more elves).

It isn't about rewarding either side.  You seem to be missing the point.  It's about neither side being perfect.  Let's say you save these peasants.  Good job. You saved some innocent people.  They probably don't have much, if anything, to give you.  Maybe they get some nice epilogue slide. And that's fine.  Or, you could strongarm the bandits into fighting off the darkspawn in some way.  See, look, two different options, one of which has no reward other than good feelings and the other that has a tangible reward with cost. 

Nothing matters? Haha, no, that's not what it's about.  It's about actually making a choice.  A choice between '90% of the population dies horribly' and 'Everybody lives and has cake every day!' isn't a choice.  A choice between two or more options which contain both positive and negative aspects is better, because there's actually something to choose between here.  And even if it doesn't turn out exactly the way you wanted, you made a choice, took a stand for the principles that got you or your character there.  

[Plaintiff]

Kileyan wrote...

I'm sorry Blue, didn't mean to confuse you. I was talking more in generalities about idea that every action must have an opposite and equal reaction style of consequences. That is just weird to me. Choosing a good thing demands a bad thing must happen because Thedas is bleak?

If the story demands that everytime you save some peasants from bandits, something terrible happens, then go for it if it means something to the story. If it becomes a repeated theme for no other reason than people think every good act must have a consequence because it doesn't reward the players who let the peasants die, then that is bad story telling and bad game design.

Again, that type of design becomes just as predicable as the shining hero stories that many seem to loathe. Once you get the feeling that nothing matters, no matter what you do, its a net zero sum, it becomes a story experience where you feel no control..........just pick a color coded choice and go kill some stuff!

I can't speak for anyone else in this thread, but I'm not saying that every choice has to have terrible consequences. I'm saying that victory must come with a price. That price can come long before the victory, or it can come immediatly before, or at the same time, or immediatly after, or a long time after. Sometimes the cost is just a natural consequence of conflict.

In any story, at least, any good one, the hero has to make some sort of meaningful sacrifice, or undergo some sort of hardship. They could lose a precious possession, or be forced to abandon their selfish personal goals, or it could be a relationship or it could be their own life. It could be anything. It could be so subtle that you don't even realise it until later.

[WhiteThunder]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Whether or not an ending is "bittersweet" or "happy" is irrelevant in regards for how good it is. An ending's quality is more a question of if it suits the story being told, and if it's well done.

QFT

[Kileyan]

So you broke that down and put words in my mouth each line, talk about hyperbolic.

I stand by my words. I'm glad you are a dungeon master Dave, its becoming a lost art. Again you put a BUNCH of words in my mouth. If you gave your guys rough choices, thats ok. What I said is if the trend of story telling is that every choice you make has the DM giving an evil grin, and screwing you over in a predictable pattern, you quickly start to realize there is no right answer and lose interest.

Seriously, does every choice you give your guys and gals in the game, have someone dying on the other side of the camp, things really have to be that bleak to tell a story?

Anyways we can disagree, you seem to have a lot of venom about there being good choices.

[WhiteThunder]

Kileyan wrote...

So you broke that down and put words in my mouth each line, talk about hyperbolic.

I stand by my words. I'm glad you are a dungeon master Dave, its becoming a lost art. Again you put a BUNCH of words in my mouth. If you gave your guys rough choices, thats ok. What I said is if the trend of story telling is that every choice you make has the DM giving an evil grin, and screwing you over in a predictable pattern, you quickly start to realize there is no right answer and lose interest.

Seriously, does every choice you give your guys and gals in the game, have someone dying on the other side of the camp, things really have to be that bleak to tell a story?

Anyways we can disagree, you seem to have a lot of venom about there being good choices.

\\

Maybe the disconnect is that he sees good choices as interesting choices, while you see good choices as happy choices?

[BlueMagitek]

Kileyan wrote...

So you broke that down and put words in my mouth each line, talk about hyperbolic.

I stand by my words. I'm glad you are a dungeon master Dave, its becoming a lost art. Again you put a BUNCH of words in my mouth. If you gave your guys rough choices, thats ok. What I said is if the trend of story telling is that every choice you make has the DM giving an evil grin, and screwing you over in a predictable pattern, you quickly start to realize there is no right answer and lose interest.

Seriously, does every choice you give your guys and gals in the game, have someone dying on the other side of the camp, things really have to be that bleak to tell a story?

Anyways we can disagree, you seem to have a lot of venom about there being good choices.

Oh, I'm certain Dave is a much more vicious DM than I.  However, you seem to think there's a viable correct answer to every scenario.  That's not likely at all.  Like the 'Go to the Circle' option.  That should not have worked (especially if you haven't saved the Circle yet) without serious intervention on the player's part, as in, "I'm leaving all of my mages and most of my party here to prevent **** from going down" .  You should have come back and everyone you saved be killed except for, say, Connor and Eomen without such precautions.

[Kileyan]

Plaintiff wrote...

In any story, at least, any good one, the hero has to make some sort of meaningful sacrifice, or undergo some sort of hardship. They could lose a precious possession, or be forced to abandon their selfish personal goals, or it could be a relationship or it could be their own life. It could be anything. It could be so subtle that you don't even realise it until later.

I do agree, most of my free income goes to purchasing books not games.

The thing is books do books well, games do not do books well. Games tell a story much like books, but what makes them different is the players have to feel a bit of control. When games try to do that sacrifice, they are not those subtle things you mention, they are very heavy handed, and jerk the control of the character away, or force choices that make no sense really. 

Sure games are trying to advance the medium, but they need to find a balance between the player being the hero or villain, and the player just having his control jerked out from under him to force feed a literary idea that books do better. There is nothing wrong with trying to bring the ideas in literature to gaming, just don't throw the game out while doing it.

Which is what started me on the subject. Do those yin yang choices because they make sense for the story, not because every choice must be punished, just because.

[Kileyan]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

So you broke that down and put words in my mouth each line, talk about hyperbolic.

I stand by my words. I'm glad you are a dungeon master Dave, its becoming a lost art. Again you put a BUNCH of words in my mouth. If you gave your guys rough choices, thats ok. What I said is if the trend of story telling is that every choice you make has the DM giving an evil grin, and screwing you over in a predictable pattern, you quickly start to realize there is no right answer and lose interest.

Seriously, does every choice you give your guys and gals in the game, have someone dying on the other side of the camp, things really have to be that bleak to tell a story?

Anyways we can disagree, you seem to have a lot of venom about there being good choices.

Oh, I'm certain Dave is a much more vicious DM than I.  However, you seem to think there's a viable correct answer to every scenario.  That's not likely at all.  Like the 'Go to the Circle' option.  That should not have worked (especially if you haven't saved the Circle yet) without serious intervention on the player's part, as in, "I'm leaving all of my mages and most of my party here to prevent **** from going down" .  You should have come back and everyone you saved be killed except for, say, Connor and Eomen without such precautions.

Hey we agree here, the first thing I thought was.........REALLY? I am going to travel 2 weeks to the mage tower and back, what the hell! That is just wishy washy stupid writing, not something that can be brought up as proof, everytime consquences is mentioned.

[BlueMagitek]

Kileyan wrote...

Hey we agree here, the first thing I thought was.........REALLY? I am going to travel 2 weeks to the mage tower and back, what the hell! That is just wishy washy stupid writing, not something that can be brought up as proof, everytime consquences is mentioned.

Alright, how about sparing the werewolves by getting the Keeper to sacrifice himself?  All the Dalish and humans are cured, and it turns out that the Keeper's first was a better leader (or, better at keeping peace at least) than him.  Compare this to the Keeper getting moody and just disappearing one day.  While we do see some of the werewolves being hunted in DA2 (if I recall correctly), the Dalish tribe seems to be better off, especially if you're a Dalish Warden.

[Kileyan]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Hey we agree here, the first thing I thought was.........REALLY? I am going to travel 2 weeks to the mage tower and back, what the hell! That is just wishy washy stupid writing, not something that can be brought up as proof, everytime consquences is mentioned.

Alright, how about sparing the werewolves by getting the Keeper to sacrifice himself?  All the Dalish and humans are cured, and it turns out that the Keeper's first was a better leader (or, better at keeping peace at least) than him.  Compare this to the Keeper getting moody and just disappearing one day.  While we do see some of the werewolves being hunted in DA2 (if I recall correctly), the Dalish tribe seems to be better off, especially if you're a Dalish Warden.

I appreciate the effort to make me see the light, but it is not going to work for me if you keep weaving this story where every single good acts has the crazy coincidental string of events that make them bad choices. Writing a story that way is not interesting IMHO.

This kind of thing used sparingly is a great story telling tool though.

For example, if my Warden City Elf freed some slave elves on the road, gave them some fresh new clothing and 50 gold, I would be ok if I found them on crosses outside the city walls. They were killed, as it was assumed that the only way such lowly elves could get such clothing and money was to kill their owners. I would remember that event for years of gaming to come. I thought I was doing the right thing, and it went so wrong. My only other choice was to leave them as caravan slaves.

In my example that is a minor encounter, typical fantasy faire until I see them outside the city hung, 15 game play hours later.

That is the way to do it, not tie it into the main story, where you have to force feed bad choices to make it "gritty". Not use the idea in every encounter or hit the players over the head with it constantly.

Short version, I am not all about it being perfect choices for the hero, but I am against it being a no win situation where every choice is contrived with bad results. There is room for a good choice just being a darn good choice......imho. I'm a crazy guy, there is even room for a choice being a happy choice, I know crazy.

Modifié par Kileyan, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Oh, I'm certain Dave is a much more vicious DM than I. However, you seem to think there's a viable correct answer to every scenario. That's not likely at all. Like the 'Go to the Circle' option. That should not have worked (especially if you haven't saved the Circle yet) without serious intervention on the player's part, as in, "I'm leaving all of my mages and most of my party here to prevent **** from going down" . You should have come back and everyone you saved be killed except for, say, Connor and Eomen without such precautions.

Why? What point would this have? Why would it happen logically, and why should it exist narratively? I see no reason at all to not have it turn out well.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Why? What point would this have? Why would it happen logically, and why should it exist narratively?

It's a logical consequence to the protagonist's carelessness/idealism.

I see no reason at all to not have it turn out well.

Of course you don't.

Modifié par GodWood, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:21 .

[BlueMagitek]

Kileyan wrote...

I appreciate the effort to make me see the light, but it is not going to work for me if you keep weaving this story where every single good acts has the crazy coincidental string of events that make them bad choices. Writing a story that way is not interesting IMHO.

This kind of thing used sparingly is a great story telling tool though.

For example, if my Warden City Elf freed some slave elves on the road, gave them some fresh new clothing and 50 gold, I would be ok if I found them on crosses outside the city walls. They were killed, as it was assumed that the only way such lowly elves could get such clothing and money was to kill their owners. I would remember that event for years of gaming to come. I thought I was doing the right thing, and it went so wrong. My only other choice was to leave them as caravan slaves.

In my example that is a minor encounter, typical fantasy faire until I see them outside the city hung, 15 game play hours later.

That is the way to do it, not tie it into the main story, where you have to force feed bad choices to make it "gritty". Not use the idea in every encounter or hit the players over the head with it constantly.

Short version, I am not all about it being perfect choices for the hero, but I am against it being a no win situation where every choice is contrived with bad results. There is room for a good choice just being a darn good choice......imho. I'm a crazy guy, there is even room for a choice being a happy choice, I know crazy.

Except that it is the 'good' acts that require the story to bend over backwards for itself.  You're killing an old leader of the Dalish and putting his City Elf apprentice in his place during the time of the Blight.  Everything works out amazingly.  There's no power struggle between the Dalish despite her being a city elf.  If you did save the Keeper, he just kind of walks off one day. If you save the werewolves, they just start attacking people.  So one of these choices is significantly better than the others.  That's the problem.

Not every encounter.  Most encounters you probably aren't going to see the end result of.  Like giving that Elf family some silver or letting them grab the goods off the bandits first in Lothering.  There's no problem that I can think of from the vast majority of Chantery Board quests.  There are some Collective Quests that should have gone awry though.  Giving the Scrolls of Banastor to another person when they reek of evil is not plan a.  Or if you took the quests from the Barkeep; they were clearly under the law, crime should have gone up in Denerim.

A situation not being 100% win is not a no win situation.  It's a situation.  Good can still come from your actions, but you didn't make that action without some cost attached to it.  Sometimes the cost may be worth it to you, othertimes it might not.  Hard choices are good.

Xilizhra wrote...

Why? What point would this have? Why
would it happen logically, and why should it exist narratively? I see no
reason at all to not have it turn out well.

You're leaving a demon possessed mage with no control of his powers alone for 2 weeks while you go off in mere hopes that the Circle might have a better solution.  A possessed mage who has, if I might remind you, already killed a boatload of people and mutilated a number of elves for his pleasure.  Assuming he's just going to sit in a hallway for two weeks is a bit ludicrous.

It would also, narratively, reinforce that magic is dangerous in the hands of the untrained, it is never worth it to make a deal with demons and, generally, be a wake up call for the player who thought that leaving a possessed murderer on their own for two weeks was a good idea.

[Kileyan]

On a lighter note, King Conan may be in the works.

This symphony gives me goose bumps of the original Conan, that later younger generation likely make fun of.

www.youtube.com/watch

We will see a heroes journey here, with a lot of mistakes. Likely a bittersweet ending, he will be in his waning years, an old man, with one last adventure in him.

Sorry I know, off topic.

[BlueMagitek]

Conan has already become Governator of California. His story has already gone by us.

[Xilizhra]

You're leaving a demon possessed mage with no control of his powers alone for 2 weeks while you go off in mere hopes that the Circle might have a better solution. A possessed mage who has, if I might remind you, already killed a boatload of people and mutilated a number of elves for his pleasure. Assuming he's just going to sit in a hallway for two weeks is a bit ludicrous.

Note that he's lost control of the castle, with a bunch of knights and other soldiers holding it at the moment, and seems very protective of his own body, as seen by him fleeing from immediate violence. The undead plague is no longer a real threat to Redcliffe, especially since nearly all of them were destroyed during the final siege. While any choice could potentially be a risk, it is not at this point a significant one.

It would also, narratively, reinforce that magic is dangerous in the hands of the untrained, it is never worth it to make a deal with demons and, generally, be a wake up call for the player who thought that leaving a possessed murderer on their own for two weeks was a good idea.

What does bringing the Circle into it have to do with dealing with demons? And allowing that plan to work also reinforces that the powers of mages can also be a very good thing to have. I'm fairly sure it's also known by now that mages can be dangerous when they have an assassinated parent and a bad tutor.

[Kileyan]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Conan has already become Governator of California. His story has already gone by us.

YOu see, that is why I hate your style of story telling. Him doing a classic old hero is bad, because you go out of your way to find a negative aspect to it. The same with DA stories, you save a peasant and you already have a bleak dark story about how he is killed because the hero dared to intervene.

Apparently being negative is artistic, and of course stories have to be artistic and thus negative.

Really I am full of ****, and don't really think what I just said see below:

But seriously that was just an excuse to post that musical score, which always bring back memories and I've had a few beers.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Note that he's lost control of the castle, with a bunch of knights and other soldiers holding it at the moment, and seems very protective of his own body, as seen by him fleeing from immediate violence. The undead plague is no longer a real threat to Redcliffe, especially since nearly all of them were destroyed during the final siege. While any choice could potentially be a risk, it is not at this point a significant one.

What does bringing the Circle into it have to do with dealing with demons? And allowing that plan to work also reinforces that the powers of mages can also be a very good thing to have. I'm fairly sure it's also known by now that mages can be dangerous when they have an assassinated parent and a bad tutor.

Those are simply knights and men at arms, not Templars.  This is a mage, remember?  Powerful, earthshattering magics?  And he is of noble blood.  As (likely) vassels to Eamon, they aren't going to go off and kill him any time soon.  Even to protect the foreign Alessa.  And where do you think the bodies came from in the first place?  Do you think they just had a number of skeletons and corpses lying around for him to make use of?  Eamon's men weren't at Ostagar, an unnatural number of deaths were unlikely.  Worst comes to worst, the demon in Connor could just break the fade and bring forth more demons; even non mage demons are capable of doing so (Sophia Dryden).  Connor is still extremely dangerous.

And now you're trying to sidestep what I said. Again.  I didn't say anything about the Circle and demons, simply the narrative about the dangers of leaving a possessed child alone with no mage aside from Jowan (potentially, he could be freed) to watch after him.

[BlueMagitek]

Kileyan wrote...

YOu see, that is why I hate your style of story telling. Him doing a classic old hero is bad, because you go out of your way to find a negative aspect to it. The same with DA stories, you save a peasant and you already have a bleak dark story about how he is killed because the hero dared to intervene.

Apparently being negative is artistic, and of course stories have to be artistic and thus negative.

Really I am full of ****, and don't really think what I just said see below:

But seriously that was just an excuse to post that musical score, which always bring back memories and I've had a few beers.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the Governator.  As Mako said, he already became King by his own hand.  That story has already been told.

Oh, okay then.  Yeah, Conan is pretty awesome.  Or at least the first one.  The second one has so much camp value though, I love watching it with friends.

[Xilizhra]

Those are simply knights and men at arms, not Templars. This is a mage, remember? Powerful, earthshattering magics? And he is of noble blood. As (likely) vassels to Eamon, they aren't going to go off and kill him any time soon. Even to protect the foreign Alessa. And where do you think the bodies came from in the first place? Do you think they just had a number of skeletons and corpses lying around for him to make use of? Eamon's men weren't at Ostagar, an unnatural number of deaths were unlikely. Worst comes to worst, the demon in Connor could just break the fade and bring forth more demons; even non mage demons are capable of doing so (Sophia Dryden). Connor is still extremely dangerous.

Simply put, the abomination is a coward. It fled the instant actual violence near its person appeared. As for where the bodies came from, it'd just need one to start, kill someone unarmed, get two, then slowly expand from there. Also, many of Eamon's men were thrown around to look for the Urn, and several died there.

And now you're trying to sidestep what I said. Again. I didn't say anything about the Circle and demons, simply the narrative about the dangers of leaving a possessed child alone with no mage aside from Jowan (potentially, he could be freed) to watch after him.

If you're going that route, then I would demand the option to leave a full party behind to guard Connor while you head over to the Circle and bring help back.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Simply put, the abomination is a coward. It fled the instant actual violence near its person appeared. As for where the bodies came from, it'd just need one to start, kill someone unarmed, get two, then slowly expand from there. Also, many of Eamon's men were thrown around to look for the Urn, and several died there.

If you're going that route, then I would demand the option to leave a full party behind to guard Connor while you head over to the Circle and bring help back.

Did you not notice the ability to summon demons?  The possibility of mind control though blood magic?  The demon knows how, she can teach you.  Even if he only controls, say, one person a day, that's at least one person they need to kill or disable, whittling down their own forces against someone that they can't really slay without severe consequence. And you're forgetting, again, the difference between gameplay and story when it comes to abominations.

Did you read my post at all?

[Xilizhra]

Did you not notice the ability to summon demons? The possibility of mind control though blood magic? The demon knows how, she can teach you. Even if he only controls, say, one person a day, that's at least one person they need to kill or disable, whittling down their own forces against someone that they can't really slay without severe consequence. And you're forgetting, again, the difference between gameplay and story when it comes to abominations.

I'm fairly sure it's illegal to not kill abominations. And you're making too much of the difference, and templar propaganda.

Did you read my post at all?

Yes, because your party has no mages in it! What a shame. If only it had one, or even two...

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...


I'm fairly sure it's illegal to not kill abominations. And you're making too much of the difference, and templar propaganda.

Yes, because your party has no mages in it! What a shame. If only it had one, or even two...

One Revenant, which is also at Redcliffe, is more than capable of murdering squadrons of men.  Abominations are alive and can summon more.  And no, this isn't propoganda because we see demons summon more demons and close off the fade. And we know that the demon knows blood magic because it's possible to learn it from said demon!  And no, abominations are very powerful, despite your inability to acknowledge it.

What are you going on about now?