13 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

When I say "Leash Character Agency", I'm talking about those moments in a story where the plot holds back a character from being proactive when nothing is really there to hold them back. Essentially, tying the hands of the involved characters so that they can't interfere with the plot until the plot wants them to be involved.

 

I saw a lot of this in both Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. Not to say that it wasn't present in earlier games like KOTOR or the first two Mass Effect games, but it's way more prevalent in DA2 and ME3 to being badly contrived.

 

In DA2, we saw several instances where Hawke is held in place while events unfold around him and for no other reason than that the plot said so. This ranges from stuff like the death of the sibling in the prologue; the fate of the sibling in Act 1 (particularly Bethany being forced into the Circle); Letting Meredith hold Kirkwall in a police state even though this is a clear breach of Chantry/Templar power; and being forced to choice between mages and templars when neither side realistically has anything to force his hand that is worst than anything that he's dealt with. 

 

These and other examples just make the situations less believable and more contrived which makes them less engaging and fun. A restricted agency makes a character more of a tool of the plot rather than an organic character with their own motives, personalities and goals. Thematically, Hawke was doomed to fail because Kirkwall was beyond saving. But it would have been better if the plot hadn't held back Hawke and allowed him to try on his own terms rather than those that are dictated to him by the plot.

 

Which is more tragic: A man sees his fiance leaping off of a cliff, fails to dissuade her from jumping and dives to stop her, only to fail or A man sees his fiance leaping off of a cliff, fails to dissuade her from jumping and stands there as she falls off? To me, the former seems more natural to human nature and a man who loves his fiancee and wants to save her...but fails to reach her despite his best efforts.

 

I want the risk of failure, don't mistake me. I just don't want to be contrived to fail because the plot arbitrarily wants me to fail. Even a situation where the Inquisitor is actually doomed to failure would be fine. But that could be a Kobeyashi Maru scenario where the Inquisitor does everything in their power to fight for their life and their goal, only to fail against overwhelming odds and powers that they cannot match.

 

But if the plot just holds back the Inquisitor and tells them that there's nothing that they can do without giving a cohesive, in-universe reason...that's just a contrivance. That's just the plot restricting the pc's agency because the plot wants something to happen without interference from the player.

 

That's no fun. Let's hope we have way less of this in Inquisition and future Bioware games.

[Gothfather]

Sorry but all games Leash Character agency.

 

No game can give players full agency because no game can antisipate everything. Games only give the illussion of agency. RPGs have the most restrictive Agency of all. Even skyrim with its polar opposite design philosophy to bioware's approach restricts player agency. Your option in the faction quests or the main quests are subjected to the same type of restrictions. You have to allow the plot of each of the skyrim quest arcs to unfold at the games pace. What you can do is limited as well, especially with main plot NPCs.

 

Yes your agency is restricted, it is a limitation of the medium. You have more agency then a movie or TV show but you have less agency than in a table top RPG because your DM doesn't have to craft the all the story before hand including you characters actions. There is a story being told in a story driven RPG, accept this is the case and play WITHIN the paramaters of that story. Trying to break free of those paramaters only leads to frustration because you will ALWAYS run into barriers. You are an UNEQUAL partner in the story. You have the power to change the story but you are not equal as you would be in a table top pen and paper RPG. Accept you are an unequal partner. Change the story in ways you can change it and enjoy the story that unfolds.

[Raylis]

I'd say the biggest character leash is forcing your character to be a gray warden in Origins. To be honest, the whole idea of being a warden is VERY unappealing to me, I hate to be forced to do anything, and if I were in the situation I would have fought duncan and he would have been forced to kill me. But that would be a terrible and short game. So I designed a situation in which my character believably joined the wardens for her own reasons. And it was a ton of fun. Without character leashing you'd almost never come into contact with the plot, you'd just end up crossing the ocean (because who doesn't want to see whats on the other side of the ameranthine??) and wandering chasing butterflies because there's nothing to do because the blight killed everyone. But working around the limitations can be just as fun if you allow it to be.

 

...but I do agree that leashing should be avoided at all costs unless necessary. I just wanted to point out that sometimes it is (necessary) in order to have a heartwrenching and memorable story.

[ShadowLordXII]

I'd say the biggest character leash is forcing your character to be a gray warden in Origins. To be honest, the whole idea of being a warden is VERY unappealing to me, I hate to be forced to do anything, and if I were in the situation I would have fought duncan and he would have been forced to kill me. But that would be a terrible and short game. So I designed a situation in which my character believably joined the wardens for her own reasons. And it was a ton of fun. Without character leashing you'd almost never come into contact with the plot, you'd just end up crossing the ocean (because who doesn't want to see whats on the other side of the ameranthine??) and wandering chasing butterflies because there's nothing to do because the blight killed everyone. But working around the limitations can be just as fun if you allow it to be.

 

...but I do agree that leashing should be avoided at all costs unless necessary. I just wanted to point out that sometimes it is (necessary) in order to have a heartwrenching and memorable story.

 

It's true that there are some paths that are restricted in an RPG.

 

But I didn't mind when it happened in games like Origins and Skyrim because it wasn't so blatant or obvious. Becoming a Warden makes a lot of sense in most Origins (you were conscripted as a city elf/commoner dwarf/you have no where else to go as a dwarf noble/dalish elf is dying with the joining being the only cure) and even then, the player can do whatever they want as a Warden after the Joining. This was a minor example to me because it at least led to a good experience and it's the only way to save the day.

 

Remember that time where Origins forced the Warden to get captured? Oh wait! That game actually allowed the player to fight back and even kill Ser. Cathrien (though it is one of the hardest fights in the game). Surrendering is a path that the player could take, but it wasn't forced on the player. Nor was the player forced to side with Anora. They could pick Alistair, marry Alistair to Anora, or the Nobles could marry Alistair/Anora themselves. The game even has an explanation for why those two are the best options and why someone else in the Bannorn doesn't put themselves forward as king/queen.

 

I'd rather have a non-contrived cliche story than a contrived "tragic" one. The latter isn't tragic or engaging at all. Especially when it's obvious.

 

Sorry but all games Leash Character agency.

 

No game can give players full agency because no game can antisipate everything. Games only give the illussion of agency. RPGs have the most restrictive Agency of all. Even skyrim with its polar opposite design philosophy to bioware's approach restricts player agency. Your option in the faction quests or the main quests are subjected to the same type of restrictions. You have to allow the plot of each of the skyrim quest arcs to unfold at the games pace. What you can do is limited as well, especially with main plot NPCs.

 

Yes your agency is restricted, it is a limitation of the medium. You have more agency then a movie or TV show but you have less agency than in a table top RPG because your DM doesn't have to craft the all the story before hand including you characters actions. There is a story being told in a story driven RPG, accept this is the case and play WITHIN the paramaters of that story. Trying to break free of those paramaters only leads to frustration because you will ALWAYS run into barriers. You are an UNEQUAL partner in the story. You have the power to change the story but you are not equal as you would be in a table top pen and paper RPG. Accept you are an unequal partner. Change the story in ways you can change it and enjoy the story that unfolds.

 

I'm not talking about the inherent restrictions of an RPG and it's story. I'm talking about when a game's story fails to make in-game restrictions believable. Even Origins wasn't free from this, but at least there the PC could take a more proactive approach to situations involving companions or storylines. More often than not, DA2 forced Hawke to react and never gave him a chance to be proactive because the plot said that he couldn't.

 

There's a story to tell, I'll accept that. But as I said before, come up with practical and rational reasons instead of just "because the plot says so." There is nothing believable about Hawke letting his sister get taken by three templars after he potentially slaughtered a whole platoon of templars to protect strangers. Or Hawke being forced to chose between Mages and Templars because..drama..especially when there's room for a third option like telling both sides to screw off or just leaving Kirkwall.

 

The barrier is only acceptable if it is believable. That wasn't the case in DA2 and ME3 and I hope that this doesn't carry forward into Inquisition.

[catabuca]

It's the point where narrative and mechanics collide. They'll always be trying to finesse how they deal with it, and sometimes they'll get it right, sometimes they'll get it not quite so right. They have to have a cut off point somewhere, where narrative can unfold and move the story in the direction they need it to go without adding more complex options in there that can further complicate the various branches and ways in which you can proceed.

 

It's not perfect. I don't believe the seamless interactive narrative we all would love to see is possible. Certainly not right now. Maybe never. But they'll always be working to make it as fluid as possible while taking into consideration budgets and mechanics restrictions.

[Urazz]

There is always character leashing even in D&D games where the Dungeon Master controls the game and can prevent players from doing an action they don't want them to do.

[Gallimatia]

Remember that time where Origins forced the Warden to get captured? Oh wait! That game actually allowed the player to fight back and even kill Ser. Cathrien (though it is one of the hardest fights in the game).

 

Those are the kind of options I'm rather left without. A strong leash is one thing I liked about the Witcher 2 (and to a lesser extent DA2). In it you really got the sense that Geralt existed at the mercy of the world around him. Both from the plot and from game play mechanics like how if you didn't appease your guards or the elfs with bows trained on you in dialogue you got a game over screen. That to me makes his struggle and accomplishments relatable in a way the godlike Warden's never are.

 

If the PC can do anything then nothing they do has any merit.

[Tielis]

I am right there with you, OP.  I'm hoping that it was so bad in DA2 simply because the game was so rushed.

 

I'm really hoping...

[Raylis]

You make some good points ShadowLordXII. Taking that example, (never left bethany for the circle -I loved carver too much so non-mage playthroughs never lasted long- so not sure I'm taking the situation right) bioware could have let you defeat the templars, but then in the night bethany gives herself up to save you from trouble with the law, thereby keeping with the story flow but still allowing you choice? I would like to see more of that (and I DID reload over and over and over until I finally finished that fight in origins so I wouldn't get captured, lol. It was awesome. Hell no was I allowing some humans to capture my dalish rogue and keep her from her suicidal revenge path toward the archdemon )

 

P.S. your logic makes it very difficult to play devils advocate, I'm impressed.

[Mihura]

Those are the kind of options I'm rather left without. A strong leash is one thing I liked about the Witcher 2 (and to a lesser extent DA2). In it you really got the sense that Geralt existed at the mercy of the world around him. Both from the plot and from game play mechanics like how if you didn't appease your guards or the elfs with bows trained on you in dialogue you got a game over screen. That to me makes his struggle and accomplishments relatable in a way the godlike Warden's never are.

 

If the PC can do anything then nothing they do has any merit.

 

Did you just compare DA2 with The Witcher 2? if I was you I would hide.

 

I think it is impossible to escape it, at least for the main arc. Of course there are some games that have more resources like being only on text, it helps to branch the story a lot better. When you voice the game is a lot harder in my opinion. 

[ShadowLordXII]

Those are the kind of options I'm rather left without. A strong leash is one thing I liked about the Witcher 2 (and to a lesser extent DA2). In it you really got the sense that Geralt existed at the mercy of the world around him. Both from the plot and from game play mechanics like how if you didn't appease your guards or the elfs with bows trained on you in dialogue you got a game over screen. That to me makes his struggle and accomplishments relatable in a way the godlike Warden's never are.

 

If the PC can do anything then nothing they do has any merit.

 

How is the Warden godlike and invincible? That's an exaggeration. The Warden certainly accomplished a lot within their story, but that's because the story didn't needlessly restrict them for the sake of drama (at least as much as Hawke). Even then, the Warden couldn't accomplish a lot of things without a price and there were things that were beyond his control (some of which made less sense than others, but it's minor).

 

I do agree that the Witcher 2 was capable of striking a balance between telling it's story and giving the player freedom to have fun and feel like their actions matter within that story. Geralt was an anti-hero who was primarily acting for survival or the survival of his friends, he wasn't in a position to influence the outcome of the grander situations nor did he really care to do so.

 

Throughout DA2, Hawke was placed in perfect position to prevent a lot of things that happened before his eyes. But did nothing only because the plot said so. If a protagonist is to be limited in their options, I'd prefer an approach that's similar to the Witcher 2 rather than DA2.

 

An invincible protagonist/pc is boring, I agree. But the exact opposite will frustrate people in a bad way (i don't mean frustrate in that it challenges people). What's the point of playing or caring if the plot is going to shackle me the entire way?

[veeia]

Witcher 2 comparisons are extremely unproductive here imo, as Geralt is a set, established character. That's huge in terms of character agency---because the designers already know what falls Into the "what Geralt would or wouldn't do/notice/think" category.

DA2 is sort of a bad example too, IMO, because it's such an obviously rushed game...its hard to tell where you've been railroaded on purpose and where there would have been more content. I mean its a fine example of talking about it in general, but not for predicting how DA: I will go or talking about how story rails can function in a game.

I think a lot of people will have to either learn to accept that Bioware's focus on cinematics and voice acting and clear, focused narratives means that the player will have to give up some agency. Or stop playing them.

But you're right that DA2 executed some of then spectacularly terribly. Anders in act 3 is the worst for me. I don't want to have the option to stop him---I can accept the inevitability of that, but given the glaring warning signs Hawke is given, she's not given much to work with there.

So the hope for me is that on DA:I, if I am forced to take an inactive state, I'm given a compelling reason about why I can't choose an active one.

Hawke's sibling is fine with me on that regard in theory. The quick battle death, that's fine. The reason I think it plays as so awkward is because the cutscene is so long---we feel like maybe hawke could have done something. That's poor direction, IMO, but it still worked for me in spite of that.

[ShadowLordXII]

A lack of character leashing would make for some really uninteresting stories. If Gordon Freeman could just waltz up to the Citadel, Half-Life 2 would be over in 7 minutes. If Shepard could just fly straight for Reaper space and blow **** up, the saga would end too quickly. If Luke Skywalker just shot Palpatine in the face, there'd be no real story. Characters have to be leashed to human limitations, and this makes breaking from the leashing so much more satisfying. Being able to watch helplessly as Howe murders your family makes revenge against him all the sweeter. Seeing Meredith take over and having no power to stop her, but soon gaining that power, makes the battle have more impact. When the protag just stands around and does nothing as **** happens, then yeah, that's annoying. But think about it; in DA:2, you weren't really ever choosing to do nothing, but instead you couldn't do anything. How was a barely-trained-and-barely-armed Hawke supposed to kill the Ogre that killed their sibling? How was Hawke supposed to immediately become a one-man army against Meredith? Why would Hawke not choose a side and instead want both an army of Templars and an army of Mages fighting them simultaneously? The PC isn't invincible nor are their omnipotent. Yeah, you go up against impossible odds in DA and win, twice, but it comes with time, fighting and experience. Having everything happen instantly; being able to slay the Ogre immediately, being able to instantly take down Meredith's regime, it'd all make for a boring narrative.

 

The Howe situation made sense because it was a surprise attack and escape is your only viable option for survival. In fact, other Origins heavily imply that a Human Noble who wasn't convinced to escape by Duncan was killed along with the rest of Castle Cousland by Howe's men. But this did make sense and it was satisfying when the Noble Warden exacted justice on that traitor.

 

Hawke wasn't leashed by human limitations, he was leashed by plot requirements and contrivance.

 

Maybe Hawke wouldn't have succeeded (that's thematically the point), but as I said in an earlier point, it's much more impactful when to try and fail rather than just to do nothing and fail.

 

Perhaps Hawke (he was barely armed, but not barely trained) couldn't save his sibling in the prologue, but if that were my sibling getting attacked, I'd do everything in my power to save them regardless of my chances. That's a natural human reaction and to see Hawke just stand there when he was in position to at least try to do something is just inexcusable. 

 

Then there's the time that those qunari are on display and about to be executed. Hawke went there to find and save them, but stands there as they're all executed one by one. What's stopping mage Hawke from blasting the templar? Rogue Hawke from shooting the knife with a bow? Warrior Hawke from charging and engaging the templar and radicals? The qunari probably would have died anyway, but again...it's much stronger of a scene when the protagonist does something. Instead, Hawke stands there and watches those qunari get executed and then fights the radicals and templars.

 

Of course Hawke would have a harder time if he didn't pick Meredith or Orsino, but it's not like he'd be completely alone. He's still one of the most influential figures in the city, he's got the back of the City Guard, and has the respect of people in the Templar and Mage orders who aren't crazy radicals. It would be hard and he wouldn't be able to stop the M/T war from happening, but I just don't see how Meredith or Orsino can intimidate and force Hawke to make a dark vs dark choice when they've got nothing to threaten him with that he has already dealt with before.

 

Not leashing Hawke's agency is what made the Leandra episode so tragic and sad. Because Hawke immediately did everything in his power to find his mother when he found out that she was missing. But was too late because of factors that really were beyond his control despite his power and ability. Hawke didn't stand by and watch someone stab his mother to death...if he did then I'd stop playing immediately.

 

A protagonist who actively tries and fails to do everything in their power is always preferable and more poignant than one who is inactive and does nothing when they can at least try to do something.