244 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

cjones91 wrote...
Okay let's say you made a deal with a faction but then someone offered to give you some magical item that makes you more powerful if you betray and and kill the faction.Most players would choose the item but let's imagine if that choice backfired and you are left without a faction because you foolishly killed them.That's the kind of choice that would make players think twice before letting their ego control how they play.

I'm all for punishing people for being idiots, but you actually think most people would do this? As far as I'm aware, based on Bioware's tracking data, by far the majority of people choose the good choice. 

[Bionuts]

You look at your choices, and the possible consequences thereof. No matter how heroic you're trying to be, if a choice you're making is irrational, or bears a bad outcome, then it should follow.

[Taleroth]

Bionuts wrote...

David7204 wrote...

A competent and successful hero is not 'power fantasy.'

Letting a murderer go is not being a competent hero.

If you can't think of some way to create competence out of a choice, then you either shouldn't offer the choice or shouldn't offer the dilemma. Anything can be justified into competence by adding content to support it.

What form that content takes will depend on core themes and how much effort you can put into the quest chain.

Modifié par Taleroth, 28 août 2013 - 01:15 .

[KiwiQuiche]

AresKeith wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult.

But what if that village turned out to be full of demons later after you saved it

Randomly? Or is there foreshadowing?

Just a random example of not every choice you think is 'good' will be 'good'

Or it could actually be foreshadowing, who knows lol 

If it was just "bam demons" it would be incredibly stupid writing.
If it was foreshadowed, and you missed/ignore it I would be okay.

[David7204]

Volus Warlord wrote...


Who says I do good things out of goodwill?

I may do good things to boost my personal reputation.

I may do good things because I fear the consequences the personal consequences of negligence or evil.

I may do good things because of my personal code, and care more for my honor than about those I save.

I may do good things to earn favors from others, and I view the "good" as a means to an end. 

I may do good things because they are the most convenient thing to do.

No one said you had to be "good" to do "good."

And how many of those motives would be satisfied by having the village survive? Most of them.

For the rest, it's your own fault for assuming saving the village would lead to a reward. Or for assuming it would boost your reputation.

[mupp3tz]

I think that being too good should be as much of a crutch as being full evil. Otherwise, it's not a very engaging experience. I think my biggest gripe is that you can still have your party support you even if you do everything opposite of their values.

[David7204]

Bionuts wrote...

You look at your choices, and the possible consequences thereof. No matter how heroic you're trying to be, if a choice you're making is irrational, or bears a bad outcome, then it should follow.

So don't make 'good' choices clearly irrational.

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...


Who says I do good things out of goodwill?

I may do good things to boost my personal reputation.

I may do good things because I fear the consequences the personal consequences of negligence or evil.

I may do good things because of my personal code, and care more for my honor than about those I save.

I may do good things to earn favors from others, and I view the "good" as a means to an end. 

I may do good things because they are the most convenient thing to do.

No one said you had to be "good" to do "good."

And how many of those motives would be satisfied by having the village survive? Most of them.

For the rest, it's your own fault for assuming saving the village would lead to a reward. Or for assuming it would boost your reputation.

This is not a matter of fault. And it is not about the survival of the village. 

Who said the village's survival was my ultimate goal? Why should it be?

[David7204]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

I think that being too good should be as much of a crutch as being full evil. Otherwise, it's not a very engaging experience. I think my biggest gripe is that you can still have your party support you even if you do everything opposite of their values.

Such a thing would in general heavily support 'good' players and punish 'evil' ones.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I can just imagine David throwing his PC/console out the window after playing the first few minutes of Nar Shaddaa in KotOR 2 and getting lectured by Kreia. Hahah.

[dreamgazer]

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

[David7204]

Volus Warlord wrote...

This is not a matter of fault. And it is not about the survival of the village. 

Who said the village's survival was my ultimate goal? Why should it be?

It doesn't have to be. What exactly are you complaining about? If you as a player have an ulterior motive, fine. What does it matter? 

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

Hello sanity, where've you been?

[KiwiQuiche]

Cowboy Saunter wrote...

i actually wouldnt mind such a humbling arch for said character.

That really depends on how you play the character, if they need to be "humbled".

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

What have I said that threatens any of that?

In fact, everything I've said has supported that. The idea that you can play a successful 'good' character and a succesful 'evil' character. That being 'good' shouldn't lead to everyone dying anyway because heroism is stupid and idealism is stupid and people are stupid and society is stupid and you're stupid and goddamn it's just so mature.

Modifié par David7204, 28 août 2013 - 01:22 .

[mupp3tz]

David7204 wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

I think that being too good should be as much of a crutch as being full evil. Otherwise, it's not a very engaging experience. I think my biggest gripe is that you can still have your party support you even if you do everything opposite of their values.

Such a thing would in general heavily support 'good' players and punish 'evil' ones.

That's very true.. and I'm not really sure how to work around the issue. In general, good is more favorable and evil will give you a doom and gloom ending. But the point about the party members, I think it could work well if they didn't depend so heavily on the protagonist (i.e: Anders being a **** haha) and the possibility of you losing their support or having them leave your party because you were too good/evil could have consequences down the road.

A betrayal or having a story arch be much harder to resolve or get through without their support.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 28 août 2013 - 01:22 .

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

He seriously needs to play the DA games

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

This is part of why I enjoy games with mechanical reactivity as well as choice based reactivity. The scope for roleplaying is much larger because it can be done through the moment to moment gameplay in addition to pre-scripted narrative choices.

It's one of BioWare's biggest weaknesses IMO in terms of making their games decent RPGs and they seem to move further and further away from that ideal, moving closer towards cinematic gaming. Which, while more visually appealing, is a lot more restrictive when it comes to roleplaying unless you invest an enormous amount of resources into it.

But yes, the scope of roleplaying in games ought to be wide and varied. Not boiled down to some subjective opinion about heroism. It's a roleplaying game, not a heroism game.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 28 août 2013 - 01:24 .

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

This is not a matter of fault. And it is not about the survival of the village. 

Who said the village's survival was my ultimate goal? Why should it be?

It doesn't have to be. What exactly are you complaining about? If you as a player have an ulterior motive, fine. What does it matter? 

You said good motives should have a good outcome. I ask if you have any means of knowing my motives.  It seems you do not. 

By your rationale, if I save the village for selfish reasons, I should fail or otherwise have a negative outcome.  But if I do it because I value life, I should succeed and be lauded as a hero with no negative consequences. But you've no means to tell why I would do it, and therefore your rationale is botch.

And ulterior motives always matter. To think otherwise is horribly naive.

[AresKeith]

CrustyBot wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

This is part of why I enjoy games with mechanical reactivity as well as choice based reactivity. The scope for roleplaying is much larger because it can be done through the moment to moment gameplay in addition to pre-scripted narrative choices.

It's one of BioWare's biggest weaknesses IMO in terms of making their games decent RPGs and they seem to move further and further away from that ideal, moving closer towards cinematic gaming. Which, while more visually appealing, is a lot more restrictive when it comes to roleplaying unless you invest an enormous amount of resources into it.

But yes, the scope of roleplaying in games ought to be wide and varied. Not boiled down to some subjective opinion about heroism. It's a roleplaying game, not a heroism game.

That's a risk I would want Bioware to take

[mupp3tz]

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

This is not a matter of fault. And it is not about the survival of the village. 

Who said the village's survival was my ultimate goal? Why should it be?

It doesn't have to be. What exactly are you complaining about? If you as a player have an ulterior motive, fine. What does it matter? 

You said good motives should have a good outcome. I ask if you have any means of knowing my motives.  It seems you do not. 

By your rationale, if I save the village for selfish reasons, I should fail or otherwise have a negative outcome.  But if I do it because I value life, I should succeed and be lauded as a hero with no negative consequences. But you've no means to tell why I would do it, and therefore your rationale is botch.

And ulterior motives always matter. To think otherwise is horribly naive.

The problem with that is that there is no way for the game to interpret player motivation. We're still very restricted in that and your decisions are categorized more as 'good' or 'evil.' Honestly, how many people play RPGs because they enjoy the feeling of being a hero? I certainly don't play because I'm genuinely wanting to improve the lives of game characters.

[David7204]

Whatever your final long term motive may be, your immediate motive is to save the village. And that motive is satisfied regardless. I have no idea where you've gotten this nonsense that wanting to save the village for selfish reasons should lead to failure. That's not true at all.

If there's been foreshadowing that saving the village will lead to some sort of reward, then yes, that should be satisfied for selfish players by rewarding them. If there hasn't been foreshadowing, I have no idea why you chose to save the village in the first place.

Modifié par David7204, 28 août 2013 - 01:28 .

[cjones91]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

I think that being too good should be as much of a crutch as being full evil. Otherwise, it's not a very engaging experience. I think my biggest gripe is that you can still have your party support you even if you do everything opposite of their values.

I think that's also something that should be a consequence,do something that a party member morally objects to then they may lose trust in you,keep making decisions that they morally disagree with then that party member may attack or leave your character forever.

[KiwiQuiche]

AresKeith wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, for frak's sake.

Look, I want the freedom to roleplay my fantasy PC anywhere between lawful good to chaotic evil. Don't try to apply some backwards universal logic about heroism here.

This is part of why I enjoy games with mechanical reactivity as well as choice based reactivity. The scope for roleplaying is much larger because it can be done through the moment to moment gameplay in addition to pre-scripted narrative choices.

It's one of BioWare's biggest weaknesses IMO in terms of making their games decent RPGs and they seem to move further and further away from that ideal, moving closer towards cinematic gaming. Which, while more visually appealing, is a lot more restrictive when it comes to roleplaying unless you invest an enormous amount of resources into it.

But yes, the scope of roleplaying in games ought to be wide and varied. Not boiled down to some subjective opinion about heroism. It's a roleplaying game, not a heroism game.

That's a risk I would want Bioware to take

Bioware tend to get eaten alive if they do that.