254 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Sure. That's exactly why I knew that going to the Circle would work.

[Jorji Costava]

I might be a couple steps behind in this conversation, but my question is this: Why even think that a decision's being made to look reckless from the PC's point of view is at all a reason in favor of making that decision work out? The one consideration is seemingly unrelated to the other.

[AlanC9]

Do you mean in favor of thinking the choice will work out? Choices framed that way generally work out, the same way Jack Bauer always gets actionable intelligence rather than b.s. when he tortures somebody. It's very rare for a hero to attempt something that turns out to have always been a bad idea; when heroes fail it's usually because something they didn't know about rather than something they did know about but thought they could beat.

[Allan Schumacher]

But as to your example, I would overwhelmingly prefer the bottom option. The bottom choices are the ones which have the overwhelmingly superior option to me. I would absolutely welcome such a choice in any BioWare with open arms. Whereas I would tend to see the top choices as 'equal' in having things really suck either way.

 

You seem to be comparing each pair with the other pair.  In the first choice, it seems pretty clear which choice is superior to the other.  In the second pair, I need more context.  It's also more likely that which one I think would be the superior choice.

 

You mention the second pair is superior.  Which choice specifically is clearly the superior one?  Keep in mind I only presented the information that you'd know at the time.  Knowing that, which one is clearly the superior?

 

 

I'll PM how the game reacts to each choice to Sylvius and Fast Jimmy (so I can't cheat and make it so whatever you choose turns out badly).

[Bob from Accounting]

You seem to be comparing each pair with the other pair.  In the first choice, it seems pretty clear which choice is superior to the other.  In the second pair, I need more context.  It's also more likely that which one I think would be the superior choice.

 

You mention the second pair is superior.  Which choice specifically is clearly the superior one?  Keep in mind I only presented the information that you'd know at the time.  Knowing that, which one is clearly the superior?

 

Err...you need more context?

 

Well...it's the second choice. It's what's right. Of course you don't execute the woman.  

[Allan Schumacher]

Err...you need more context?

 

Well...it's the second choice. It's what's right. Of course you don't execute the woman.  

 

Do you still feel it's the clearly better choice if the long term consequences end up being like so:

 

 

 

if you choose to execute the prisoner:

 

• The population dislikes you, refusing to sell their goods to you any further, and to no longer help you in your journey in any capacity.  However, by remaining in the inner circle of the corrupt official, you are granted the opportunity to implicate him in his corruption, disposing him from his rule and allowing your character to directly influence the lives of the townspeople in whatever way you feel is appropriate.

 

If you do not execute the prisoner

 

• The population likes you.  They'll provide clues when applicable, and even sell you things at a discount.  Ultimately, however, your influence in the city extends no further because the authority of the official goes unchecked.  While you can help out people piecemeal from time to time, the corrupt official continues to exploit the people for years to come.

Sylvius and Jimmy can verify that I didn't alter this response to ensure your long term consequences or less clear.

[Bob from Accounting]

I do. With two caveats.

 

Firstly, no matter how bad the consequences are for sparing the woman and no matter how good they are for killing for, nothing makes the choice to kill the woman good. In this case, I still happen to think the consequences for sparing her are better, but even if they weren't, having an evil or stupid choice work out well doesn't make it good. It only makes it lucky.

 

Secondly, I would be putting a great deal of scrutiny on the writing in this case. If there was any way I felt that the protagonist could do something against the corruption (and it's very difficult to make an otherwise powerful and influential protagonist helpless), I would be pretty upset the narrative wouldn't allow it. In addition, even if it's a player character, I would frown at a character killing an innocent woman and then helping out the townsfolk. Compromise isn't a one-time thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I guess that's why Redcliffe didn't work for me. It was pretty obvious to me that the choice that was framed as reckless would in fact work just fine. Which has nothing much to do with DAO itself; it's just that I've seen that choice before, and it always works out.

I make these decisions in-character.  My character does not have access to my genre savvy (assuming I have any), so he doesn't know things are likely to work out.  From inside the setting (where he is), the choice continues to look reckless.

 

It's not about what the player expects.  It's about what the character expects, and those two things might be very different (on a second playthrough they're almost always very different).

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Sylvius and Jimmy can verify that I didn't alter this response to ensure your long term consequences or less clear.

Indeed I can.  But upon reading the consequences the first time, I was pretty sure Bob would still choose not to execute the woman.

 

For him, it's not about the outcomes - it's about the actions.  As long as he always does the right thing in that moment, his conscience is always clear.

[Allan Schumacher]

Indeed I can.  But upon reading the consequences the first time, I was pretty sure Bob would still choose not to execute the woman.

 

For him, it's not about the outcomes - it's about the actions.  As long as he always does the right thing in that moment, his conscience is always clear.

 

That's fair.  But if he felt this way, then he wouldn't care that the consequences may not turn out as ideally as he would like.  I don't get the impression that he feels this way, however, given that he calls into scrutiny the validity of the writing to require that this happens.  If it's just about the action, there'd be no need for caveats.  An evil choice working out isn't good, it's "lucky."  As opposed to a host of other potential things such as manipulative, cunning, and so forth.

 

 

I mean, my extreme choice was intentionally framed in a way that video games rarely, if ever, frame their choices.  It's typically more likely this:

 

• Choose to not execute the prisoner, overthrowing the corrupt official in the process while winning the support of the people
• Execute the prisoner, enjoying the rewards of the corrupt official while living the life of affluence at the exploitation of others

 

This type of choice isn't really an interesting choice.  I don't feel it's very nuanced and in the world of RPGs, pretty cliche.  Although it's still better than what SOME games had, which was:

 

• Be evil and keep the awesome item you found
• Be good and be rewarded with the awesome item you found, while also being a good guy in the process.

 

I find

 

• Be evil and keep the awesome item you found
• Be good and sacrifice the reward and increase in power, because frankly it's the right thing to do.

 

 

In the first, unless your goal is to simply play an *******, the second choice is an obvious one (and an uninteresting one).  The last pair is more interesting to me.

 

 

 

EDIT:

I would *definitely* choose to not execute the woman.  That it doesn't necessarily work out the best for everyone involved is what makes it interesting to me.  If it happens early in the game, it also sets the stage that the solutions may be more nuanced (and hence interesting), since the idea of a situation coming along that may require more foresight.  For instance, I like the choice between going after the magistrate at the end of The Witcher 2's first act.  I am provided with a choice to either save an elf in a burning tower (and win the favour of the elf I am with), or go after the corrupt magistrate while he's exposed and kill him.  One feels like the "right" thing to do at the time, but if I decide to sacrifice the elf I can spare the elves and dwarves from the oppression they are experiencing.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 avril 2014 - 08:16 .

[Bob from Accounting]

If I could define the principal strength of the hero, it would be that he recognizes the true value of that which is undervalued and hidden to near everyone else: Courage, willpower, integrity, trust, loyalty. Things which are strong and subtle and long-term.

 

In contrast, he recognizes the fragility of that which most people would superficially value. Money, weapons, popularity, prestigue.

 

When compromises are made, the things you gain are obvious. The things you lose are much quieter. 

 

I fully support the hero losing things in the second category. It's natural, in fact. But he also needs to benefit from the things in the first category. And eventually triumph with them.

[AlanC9]

I make these decisions in-character.  My character does not have access to my genre savvy (assuming I have any), so he doesn't know things are likely to work out.  From inside the setting (where he is), the choice continues to look reckless.

 

It's not about what the player expects.  It's about what the character expects, and those two things might be very different (on a second playthrough they're almost always very different).

 

Sure. First playthrough I used blood magic even though I was certain that going to the Circle would work.  Oh boy, right again.

 

But I think what the player expects matters too. Since I can't un-know what I know about Bio's house style, this sort of fake dilemma puts unnecessary distance between me and my characters. In effect, my first playthrough is pre-spoiled because I know Bio's house style. Though this has been somewhat less of a problem for me with recent Bio releases.

[Allan Schumacher]

See, I find it more interesting when simply being "the good guy" isn't enough.  I've spent most of my life playing "the good guy" where simply wanting to be good was enough (and often not just enough, but ideal).  Maybe it's because I've been gaming for 30 years, but it's just not as interesting for me anymore, because I've been saturated with it.

 

I'd like to see where obtaining weapons, popularity, money, and prestige can lead to the greater good.  Where being courageous without question leads to impetuous decision making that isn't ideal.  Where your loyalty can lead to some people staying by your side, but also lead to people taking advantage of it.

 

 

It's important to note that I don't want "you do all the evil things, things play out just the way you like" either.  I also like that side having to evaluate their decisions.  If you're looking on playing a Machiavellian protagonist, it doesn't mean that you're always take advantage of people in ways that never benefit those other people as well.  Sometimes you have to sacrifice short term to achieve your long term goals, whatever your short and long term goals may be depending on the type of character that you're playing.

[Darth Krytie]

See, I find it more interesting when simply being "the good guy" isn't enough.  I've spent most of my life playing "the good guy" where simply wanting to be good was enough (and often not just enough, but ideal).  Maybe it's because I've been gaming for 30 years, but it's just not as interesting for me anymore, because I've been saturated with it.

 

I'd like to see where obtaining weapons, popularity, money, and prestige can lead to the greater good.  Where being courageous without question leads to impetuous decision making that isn't ideal.  Where your loyalty can lead to some people staying by your side, but also lead to people taking advantage of it.

 

 

It's important to note that I don't want "you do all the evil things, things play out just the way you like" either.  I also like that side having to evaluate their decisions.  If you're looking on playing a Machiavellian protagonist, it doesn't mean that you're always take advantage of people in ways that never benefit those other people as well.  Sometimes you have to sacrifice short term to achieve your long term goals, whatever your short and long term goals may be depending on the type of character that you're playing.

 

I think it'd be interesting to see how loyalty can hurt your character play out...say, helping Morrigan...if that had long term negative consequences.

 

I think it'd have been really interesting to see bigger differences in Anders' final quest based on whether you helped him or not.

 

Merril's quests are another example, too.

 

I would like more quests where the 'right' choices is more ambiguous than just good guys do A and bad guys do B.

[Bob from Accounting]

Often times it's not enough. Nobody is in denial that no-win situations exists. Heroism is not a shield that protects from bullets and knives and bad luck. It won't protect a man from getting his head cut off or a heart attack or a car accident or simply bad genes.

 

Also note that protagonists aren't successful because they want to be strong and good. They're successful because they are strong and good. The strength comes from the character. Not the player. 

 

But as to your comment -

 

The reason stories exist is to enunciate great and hidden truths. That's why we have them. Why we tell them. Why they have meaning. Things like will and courage and integrity are great hidden truths. That's why we have countless upon countless stories with the basic premise of the lone, superficially weak hero against the great, superficially strong evil. It enunciates a great truth. That what the hero possesses is triumphant over numbers and weapons and greed and fear. 

 

In contrast, whatever power the things you listed have are obvious. The power of an army is obvious. The power of money is obvious. Of authority. Of popularity. The benefits we get from all of these things are immediately apparent. What is there for a story to enunciate? What truth is there to reveal?

[Allan Schumacher]

Often times it's not enough. Nobody is in denial that no-win situations exists. Heroism is not a shield that protects from bullets and knives and bad luck. It won't protect a man from getting his head cut off or a heart attack or a car accident or simply bad genes.

 

Also note that protagonists aren't successful because they want to be strong and good. They're successful because they are strong and good. The strength comes from the character. Not the player.

 

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "good" here.  I'll agree that they are capable and talented, but if you mean "good" as some sort of qualitative statement of their ethical standing, it's not hard to come up with examples that demonstrate that protagonists (especially in video games) do not need to be good to be successful.

 

 

The reason stories exist is to enunciate great and hidden truths. That's why we have them. Why we tell them. Why they have meaning. Things like will and courage and integrity are great hidden truths. That's why we have countless upon countless stories with the basic premise of the lone, superficially weak hero against the great, superficially strong evil. It enunciates a great truth. That what the hero possesses is triumphant over numbers and weapons and greed and fear.

 

It's trite and overused.  I find it less interesting, and infinitely less meaningful.  I find a story like Lord of the Flies or Heart of Darkness enunciates "great and hidden truths" about life than Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.  And those are quality stories and not something like Transformers.

 

I also disagree with your reasoning as to why stories exist.  I see no "great truth" in a typical underdog overcoming all odds through perseverance of character.  I see escapism that people find entertaining that in many cases, but ultimately move on without giving the story much of a second thought after consuming them.  Escapism isn't bad, and it will always have a place.  In video gaming, I find it over saturated.  I feel we can do so much more with them than we currently do.

 

 

In contrast, whatever power the things you listed have are obvious. The power of an army is obvious. The power of money is obvious. Of authority. Of popularity. The benefits we get from all of these things are immediately apparent. What is there for a story to enunciate? What truth is there to reveal?

 

That having those things doesn't have to be bad.  That wielding those things appropriately and responsibly is useful.  And it's such a trope that those things are obvious, and therefore not necessary, that it'd actually be fresh if good things could happen when you leverage it.

[Bob from Accounting]

No great truth?

 

You don't see and recognize power in courage, in will, in integrity? What do you imagine sets the characters you play in video games apart from the normal townsfolk? Their skill with a weapon? Their muscles?

[Ieldra]

In contrast, whatever power the things you listed have are obvious. The power of an army is obvious. The power of money is obvious. Of authority. Of popularity. The benefits we get from all of these things are immediately apparent. What is there for a story to enunciate? What truth is there to reveal?

While I disagree that stories mainly exist to "reveal fundamental truths", let's say you're right: The truth which can be revealed here, one that is very obvious but much underappreciated by people, is that aspiring to power is not evil. Literature is full of cautionary tales, and the belief that power corrupts is ubiquitous. What people tend to overlook is that the less power you have, the less bad you do only because you do less of anything significant. Acquire power, and you can work for the greater good or not, but even if you do so 99% successfully, just by making decisions that affect many you'll be treading on someone's feet and cause a legitimate grievance, and that one will call you corrupt. Nonetheless, you did 99% good.

 

I believe that this is a truth that needs to be revealed more often in stories, and for that we need pragmatic heroes who work for good goals but aren't restricted to actions accepted by our culture's prevailing moral intuitions. Call them anti-heroes if you want, but it is a fact of life that "good" actions don't always have the best outcomes, and if a story doesn't recognize that it loses meaning for me.

[Bob from Accounting]

The problem is that such things aren't really power at all.

[Ieldra]

The problem is that such things aren't power.

Power is, by definition, the potential to influence or control the behaviour of people. Where don't you see it? In a more general sense, any alternative definition which doesn't at least include this one is plainly and very obviously false. Or based on an underlying ideology with no roots in the realities of human life.

[Fast Jimmy]

Do you still feel it's the clearly better choice if the long term consequences end up being like so:



Sylvius and Jimmy can verify that I didn't alter this response to ensure your long term consequences or less clear.

This is verified.

[Fast Jimmy]

See, I find it more interesting when simply being "the good guy" isn't enough. I've spent most of my life playing "the good guy" where simply wanting to be good was enough (and often not just enough, but ideal). Maybe it's because I've been gaming for 30 years, but it's just not as interesting for me anymore, because I've been saturated with it.

I'd like to see where obtaining weapons, popularity, money, and prestige can lead to the greater good. Where being courageous without question leads to impetuous decision making that isn't ideal. Where your loyalty can lead to some people staying by your side, but also lead to people taking advantage of it.


It's important to note that I don't want "you do all the evil things, things play out just the way you like" either. I also like that side having to evaluate their decisions. If you're looking on playing a Machiavellian protagonist, it doesn't mean that you're always take advantage of people in ways that never benefit those other people as well. Sometimes you have to sacrifice short term to achieve your long term goals, whatever your short and long term goals may be depending on the type of character that you're playing.

But even if that's the case, where there are logical reasons why the regards are better for not being "good," what does that matter? Equipment, gold, XP, consumables, special powers... these are all superfluous. Accessories to make the gameplay easier, which is already easily circumvented by better knowledge of game mechanics, power builds or lowering the game difficulty.

Money and affluence are meaningless to the player, because money isn't a real concept. There are no bills to pay. There are no desires in their life that can be alleviated through wealth. Political power won't give your character the means to make their life easier, or to retire on a beach somewhere drinking out of glasses with umbrellas in them. These are things that we, as humans, want (or some variation thereof - while not everyone may want a sun, sand and sangria, there is literally always something someone could want if they just had enough money, resources or connections to make happen if they could).

But as characters? There is nothing a better weapon or secret class or extra gold can give that isn't obtained by some patience and planning. The difference between a person who understands RPG mechanics playing through a game and never needing to reload, even with the most sub-optimal gear and a relative new player, who dies a bunch of times and needs to reload a lot, is minimal. Maybe 10 hours, on the high end. We, as players, don't naturally care about a big pile of gold our character could get for selling their soul, because gold represents ease of gameplay. It costs us maybe the equivalent of one full day of work if you pull a really long session.

As opposed to what it should mean for our character. If I was given a million dollars, it would be a huge deal for me, as it could mean I could quit my job and pursue things that I wouldn't have made much money with before, but which I would find more rewarding. But my character being offered the equivalent in game can buy some high level gear, maybe a house to store all of his loot in. And that's it.



My point of this long ramble is this... rewards can't be gameplay related. More XP, more gold, more gear... it is all too circumvented, too superficial, to make a player care more often than not. So how do you make the player afraid of the corrupt official? How do you make them say "maybe I should just play ball and real the rewards and not tick this guy off, who could make my life miserable, even if it means doing the wrong thing?" You can't fear for your life - even a non-standard game over screen just requires a reload. You can't fight, because the hero always wins or you run back into the load screen again. You can't just make other NPCs mad at you, since that generally just results in getting mean ambient dialogue whenever you walk past... not exactly wounding material.

So you up the ante. Let's say the corrupt official hires and assassin to kill you when you berth him and your LI takes the bullet, so to speak, when the assassin tries to knock you off. Maybe one of your companions hates you for doing this and, under the cover of night, sets fire to your Keep, killing friendly NPCs who you've come to know and like, the Samantha Traynor's and Dr. Chakwas' of the Keep so to speak. Or the official informs on your actions to the Big Bad, giving them intelligence about your motives, methods and actions, closing off better options for the ending because of said intelligence.

To me, those are real consequences. Any reward that only brings gameplay ease is one that isn't going to mean much to the player, since such gameplay obstacles are easily circumvented.

[jtav]

Being the good guy isn't entertaining anymore in BW games. I know that the moral option isn't going to cost me anything that matters and any extra effort I have to expend will be trivial. I can't play pure Paragon in ME because a lot of the dramatic tension is gone.

[Ieldra]

@Fast Jimmy:
You're calling for story-relevant consequences rather than gameplay-relevant ones. With that I agree. The problem here is that there is only so much of that you can do, and since the effects are felt so dramatically by the player, it best be a very important decision you hang those consequences on. Having major story-relevant consequences like companion deaths for a minor sidequest can come across as wilfully disproportionate. So there will always be rewards that mean nothing in terms of the story. The mechanism you have proposed aims at making gameplay effects relevant. A part of why I object to that is because I don't want those to be relevant. If I fight well or badly in gameplay terms is, most of the time, separate from the story to me. That will likely only change once there's no more filler combat and most encounters are actually believable in having non-violent alternative outcomes. Once combat encounters become the highlight of a story rather than the chore you must go through to get at the interesting bits, then we can talk about enduring consequences again. Even then, though, those mechanisms motivating you to accept suboptimal outcome should be part of the story.

Apart from that, remember we are roleplaying. That means the consequences don't need to reach out of the screen to affect the player to be felt as meaningful.

And most importantly, there's still this: IF I WANT TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THE CONSEQUENCES, IT'S NO DAMN BUSINESS OF YOURS!

[Wolfen09]

next thing you know your going to try to have them outlaw strategy guides