93 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

To facilitate (and to be ignored by most people) let's divide this discussion in two. First, let's look at the p/r system as a moral meter and after how it is woven into the game mechanics. This make it easier because they are separate aspects and can be analyzed individually.

i) Paragon/Renegade as a moral system: I read a lot of people complaining about the p/r system of the ME trilogy because, so say those people, it makes the game black and white. And they go to talk about how RPGs without a similar approach, like The Wicher of Dragon Age, offer more moral ambiguous choice and this and that and this again. I find this to be totally false. And the reason is simply: never, in any Mass Effect game, paragon meant right/good and renegade meant wrong/bad. They do have a clear line of thought: paragon is connected with life, forgiveness, mercy, second chances, kindness and so on, while renegade with death, killing, harsh punishments, bluntness, and so on.

They can guide you in a choice, but they in no way make a moral interpretaion of that choice. Take the Rachni Queen for example. You can either kill her on let her go, one choice is associated with paragon and other with renegade. It's easy to know which is which, but that doesn't mean one is acknoledged as right and good and the other as wrong and evil. The p/r system just group them  in a certain line of thought. 

And why this is good? Simply, it gives a clarity and a feedback concerning your decision. It give a certain character progression that stays with your character, a kind of guide that shows what type of character you're making. Many games have this, Deus Ex HR or Dishonored for example. Those are stealth games that allow you to basically kill or spare your enemies, and character and events react to that. They both have a invisible paragon/renegade system that would represent your character if you could actually see it, but because there is no visual represetation it doesn't help the player as Mass Effect's system does. And as I see it, doesn't make the game more ambiguous or stuff. It just make things less clear.

There is also another impotant consequence of it, but that's the second part.

ii) Paragon/Renage system as a game mechanic: Needless to say, dialogue is a huge deal in Mass Effect. And the P/R system plays a important role in it. Especially in the key moments where your alignment can decide if you have certain dialogue options or not (which generally allow for special decisions). Also needless to say, the mechanic in itself changed a lot in the three games. But on a general term, we can say that picking paragon choices will most likely allow you to pick critical paragon choices, while the same to renegade. A lot of players don't like that. Why, they argue eloquently, should I be punish by not being able to pick a renegade choice because I picked paragon ones ealier in the game? Because, I say inarticulately, it makes sense! Aren't people shaped by their decisions? Yes, it's easy to see how your decisions shape the world around you in RPGs, but the P/R system allows people to see with a simple, yet clear way how they shape yourself. 

An example. The fight between Tali and Legion in ME2 is a decision that I often don't have the necessary points to pick the critical choices which allows Shepard to reach a compromise and please both parties. The paragon choice appeal to reason, while the reegade is a threat. Does it make sense, I ask, for a Shepard that have been a character that followed most the paragon route to be able to threat effectively both these characters, that have such strong feeling concerning the subject they are arguing about? Or the opposite, does it make sense for a Shepard that have been mostly a brute and ruthless soldier to appeal to their sense of reason? I say it does not because it's not about choices, it's about building a character that has a progression. And the R/P system is that progression. And let's not forget that you can very well reach that decision with both options available, but for that you need to create a Shepard that in the end it's reasonable for both of those choices to be accessible. The P/R doesn't make only two kind of character possible, it allows for any number of personalities. And it also make sure that a certain type of character won't be able to argue in the way that another one would, just like it is with real people. 

Final words: I'm not saying here that the P/R system is perfect, but I'm arguing it is a good thing. One that should be in NME. And can be improved, and I dare say it was across all three games and in ME3 it was at its best. The addition of the neutral points allowed for more flexibility in choices, and is worth mentioning that there can be big choices which dosen't fit neither the paragon or renagede lines of thought and there is no problem there since there is no need to force renagede or paragon points everywhere. The connection between it and the dialogue system can be improved too. The Legion/Tali fight for example, maybe you should be able to pick the critical choices regardless of r/p points, but failing to be convincing any of them if you don't have enough points.

In short, the P/R system is good because on the surface it allows us to have a clear and simple view of the character we are making and on the background it creates a character progression and make it possible or not for your character to successfully make choices that reasonably fit that character. 

 

[cap and gown]

The para/ren system does not contribute to my roleplaying at all. In fact, it gets in the way of roleplaying in ME2. If you follow any of my playthroughs you see that right from the start I make it clear that I am going to pick dialogue options/courses of action not based one whether they are paragon or renegade, but based on the background and outlook of the character I am playing. Sometimes my chars pick renegade, sometimes they pick paragon, but it is based on the dialogue/choice, not based on whether it is up or down.

 

Futhermore, the writers never had a clear idea of what renegade is. Sometimes it was just being a jerk. Sometimes it was being a sociopath. And sometimes it was being pragmatic. But it never had any consistency at all. I think DA2, and particularly DAI, has a better system as far as choosing faction alignments: either pro-mage or pro-templar, or somewhere in between. At least in that system you can create a character with a certain outlook on the key issues facing their world and play out that character.

[MrFob]

I am with cap and gown. I did particularly like DA:I's wheel.

It was just more flexible and the fact that the options are not so clearly labeled gives me as the player more freedom to really roleplay and choose the option that fits. Sure, even in DA:I, decisions were kind of ordered from top to bottom but even with a purely altruistic character, I would sometimes choose a bottom option for sense and my character wouldn't just go all ruthless (the judgement scenes were particularly good in that regard). The lines in the wheel should be enough to describe the choice (maybe together with the mood icons) and it is often a good idea to put options in that go beyond the P/R definition when a situation demands it (see DA:I and yes, I am looking at you ME3 with your constant 2-option wheels).

 

Besides, the P/r System does not really allow you to shape "your" character. Especially in ME2, it allowed you to choose between three archetypes: The full-on paragon, the full-on renegade and some rather unpersuasive guy in between, who chooses the right side options (I did one playthrough like this, it wasn't actually that bad, got a lot of people killed though). That is not roleplaying, IMO. My favorite playthrough is with a shep who is nice to his friends but rather renegade towards people she doesn't like (e.g. politicians). I usually end up editing my savegame in ME2, so that I can use all options because it does make sense that she would be able to reason with Tali and Legion, who know her as a friend, even if by the mechanic she is mostly renegade. ME3 introduced a better system with the reputation but it's mostly turned moot by the fact that the wheel itself often just has two choices.

 

So ultimately, while an improvement to the dark/light side meter in KotOR, I think the P/r system has outlived itself and should be done away with. The wheel should be more diverse and I wouldn't mind an approval system like in DA (just for once, don't show us the approval, let it run in the background and show us the approval through interaction, not statistics).

[SimonTheFrog]

Concerning i:

 

Why is Mass Effect limiting itself to paragon and renegade? Why not some other stances, like "the sarcastic, snarky" type? 

How is the player supposed to deal with situations where the game attributs random other moral stances to one of the two in the paragade system (like attributing rasism or being dismissive to companions and stuff like that to renegade)?

How is that moral system integrated into the ingame world? Is it ever mention anywhere other than the UI? This makes it feel artificial and unrelated to the game-world itself (unlike, for example the force alignement in the KOTOR-games).

 

For me, the system is very badly defined. Both terms mean very different things in different situations. Both terms appear to be arbitrary sides of a coin that has more than two sides (sorry for clumsy image). Both terms are actually meaningless and don't actually add anything to the game. If the game would just allow several dialog options without attributing them to this system the player could still feel heroic, badass or whatever.

 

Concerning ii:

 

The idea of roleplaying is, that you can express your own way of playing the central character of the game. This is your avatar, your way of interacting with the world. The way that paragade was linked to story progression (who can live, who has to die) made it impossible for players to freely express their paragade stance per situation as they saw fit. They NEEDED to ALWAYS yank the controller in the same direction no matter the actual context or dialog choice to be able to hit the high paragade-mark needed to pass certain checks. This is the opposite of role-playing.

Please note: this system was altered in ME3 especially to allow more freedom. In my eyes game-design in the ME:U cleary is moving away from that rigid moral system and this is a good thing.

[RoboticWater]

To your first point: I disagree. The paragon and renegade system does make a moral judgement about your actions. The scars in ME2 should be enough to prove that. Maybe I'm wrong, and BioWare didn't intend for the P/R system to judge us, but regardless of their intention, that's the way it comes off. I can see your reasoning behind why paragon and renegade are only kinds of actions but at the end of the day, paragons are doing moral things and renegades are doing morally reprehensible things. If we strip away the P/R system, then we don't have to lump clearly "wrong" actions together with completely justifiable ones and altruistic actions with sweet nothings.  

 

To your second point: while I think that we should be rewarded for forming a consistent and believable character, I don't think two arbitrary scales are the most effective way to promote that. My problem with the P/R system is that it completely removes context from the equation and rewards utter devotion rather than practical, situational thinking. All the P/R system tells me is that I've done X amount of good stuff and X amount of bad stuff, but not what stuff and to whom.

 

Imagine that I have enough paragon to settle Legion and Tali's dispute,but I've accumulated a decent amount renegade by being a jerk exclusively to one or both of them. The P/R system doesn't acknowledge that. It says that my general good nature overrides my specific disliking of Tali, Legion, or their respective races. Imagine now, a purely context based dialog system. While I don't know how many good or bad things I've done, I remember the character I'm role playing doesn't care much for the quarian/geth conflict. So if I choose to be ruthless towards the two, I can succeed, but if I forget my character and choose to just randomly start caring, I'll fail.  

 

One of my largest concerns with video game dialog is that it rarely challenges the player. Truly scintillating conversation requires artful navigation through speech, effectively making dialog a game of its own. It forces the player to pay attention and prepare for conversations, not necessarily remembering names, places, and other minutia, but X character likes Y and that I did Z to Q, so now I can't just say W to get things over with. The P/R system essentially takes the burden off the player during dialog. You can easily get through the entirety of Mass Effect by choosing the top left or top right options during cutscenes. Even if BioWare decided to randomize the location of options, the burden on the player is still "find the choice that sounds nice." Sure, it's technically role playing, but with little necessity of the player. I think it's very telling that ME3 features a mode that allows you to get through dialog automatically, and though I'm an advocate for accessibility, I think there needs to be a level of forced immersion. That's something the P/R system doesn't easily facilitate.

 

Even if you don't agree with anything I've said, I must say that removing the P/R system wouldn't cause any major damage to the game play, so why not try it out? 

[God]

As a few people have said, they do have the P/R system as a sort of black and white (or blue and orange) morality system.

 

On the positive side at least, they don't apply it on a macro-scale for the whole universe. Which is a good thing. The universe is based on a more ambiguous, amoral, and dare I say realistic view where the more practical (which is often renegade) responses tend to have the greater outcome.

 

I do like the DA:I system of the dialogue wheel as well, with other options being opened up not by how good or bad or paragon or renegade you are, but with what you unlock with the perks (such as history knowledge, underworld knowledge, etc.)

[MrFob]

To your second point: while I think that we should be rewarded for forming a consistent and believable character,

 

Just on that point *, I think that the reward for playing a consistent character should be just a consistent experience of the game/story. I don't think there is a need to attach a gameplay mechanic to it.

 

If you want to play your PC as a schizophrenic, that's perfectly fine as long as you don't complain that the playthrough will feel a bit weird (as well it should). Personally, in general, I think too many games these days tend to manifest their rewards in gameplay mechanics, rather than in the actual game experience, which is a shame,

 

Don't get me started on achievements.

 

 

*) I know I am taking you horribly out of context here RoboticWater, sorry for that, this is not a rebuttle of your statement but rather a general comment.

[God]

I always viewed the morality system and the narrative as separate. It's why the morality doesn't apply to or affect the narrative beyond a material, tangible means of resources. A players morality and ideological belief system doesn't have a bearing on the physical consequences of the narrative.

 

It's why I don't have an issue with the ending not reflecting a players morality or how they played the game. To me, that's where the inherent divide between the subjective interior ideology and morality of the player, and the more objective, physical, and practical considerations of the narrative universe came to light most prominently.

 

Even for Control, which is the one ending that kind of reflects player morality, I'm able to come up with an explanation where the Crucible scans Shepard's brain and creates a neural map that plans out how Shepard thinks on a neural level, and why the new Shepard based Catalyst is able to have two personality's, one being a great protector and force for 'good' and justice, and the other being a great enforcer that reflects more socially Darwinist views.

[RoboticWater]

Just on that point (and I know I am taking you horribly out of context here RoboticWater, sorry for that), I think that the reward for playing a consistent character should be just a consistent experience of the game/story. I don't think there is a need to attach a gameplay mechanic to it.

 

If you want to play your PC as a schizophrenic, that's perfectly fine as long as you don't complain that the playthrough will feel a bit weird (as well it should). Personally, in general, I think too many games these days tend to manifest their rewards in gameplay mechanics, rather than in the actual game experience, which is a shame,

 

Don't get me started on achievements.

Go right ahead, this is an important point to make. The main reason I didn't like the EMS bar is that it felt like an oversimplified game mechanic rather than a realistic simulation of war. I wasn't scraping together the universe's final hope, I was filling up a bar until the game said I was done. Simplifying our dialog actions in a similar manner does the same thing. 

 

Showing the player their stats can ruin the experience to an extent. Feedback is important, but it needs to feel consistent with the rest of the atmosphere. The instant I get an achievement for pursuing a relationship, any semblance of reality is lost (actually, the instant I get a super cheesy and completely unnecessary sex scene is when I tap out, but that's a different topic). Unfortunately, achievements and their misuse are likely here to stay, but I think BioWare should be more conscious about other mechanics they show. Romance should be its own reward as should moral decisions.

[Fixers0]

I personally really liked how Shepard's morality affected the ME1 ending, there are four possible combinations, factoring in the short-term choice of saving or sacrifcing the council and the long term "choice" of Shepard's morality. While saving or sacrificing the council is the primary choice Shepard's morally does in a great deal affect the context and tone of the ending scene, especiall when the council is sacrificied. For that reason I was also rather dissapointed by the fact that Mass Effect 2 did not factor in Shepard's morality. Saving the council is automaticly asumed to be paragon and sacrificing them is automaticly assumed to be renegade. 

[Lee T]

The idea of roleplaying is, that you can express your own way of playing the central character of the game. This is your avatar, your way of interacting with the world. The way that paragade was linked to story progression (who can live, who has to die) made it impossible for players to freely express their paragade stance per situation as they saw fit. They NEEDED to ALWAYS yank the controller in the same direction no matter the actual context or dialog choice to be able to hit the high paragade-mark needed to pass certain checks. This is the opposite of role-playing.
Please note: this system was altered in ME3 especially to allow more freedom. In my eyes game-design in the ME:U cleary is moving away from that rigid moral system and this is a good thing.

This is my main problem with it, having the system reward you for being consistently one or the other was not a good idea.

My other problem is immersion. The way the actors voiced each choice it was jarring to hear the voice changing when you sporadically choose the other side. There is a costly solution, the one DA2 tried, to have the actor voice each sentence using each personna so that you could "diplomatically" make a threat for exemple.

Coming from KOTOR I didn't mind the system in the first game, however' seeing the thing they could do with more open dialogs in DA, I hope they'll do something about it. Eithe keep the option but cut the link to the game sustem so that it is only an expression of your character or get rid of it compeltely to allow for more options like they did in DA or like Obsidian didi in Alpha Protocol.

[Googlesaurus]

ii) Paragon/Renage system as a game mechanic: Needless to say, dialogue is a huge deal in Mass Effect. And the P/R system plays a important role in it. Especially in the key moments where your alignment can decide if you have certain dialogue options or not (which generally allow for special decisions). Also needless to say, the mechanic in itself changed a lot in the three games. But on a general term, we can say that picking paragon choices will most likely allow you to pick critical paragon choices, while the same to renegade. A lot of players don't like that. Why, they argue eloquently, should I be punish by not being able to pick a renegade choice because I picked paragon ones ealier in the game? Because, I say inarticulately, it makes sense! Aren't people shaped by their decisions? Yes, it's easy to see how your decisions shape the world around you in RPGs, but the P/R system allows people to see with a simple, yet clear way how they shape yourself. 

An example. The fight between Tali and Legion in ME2 is a decision that I often don't have the necessary points to pick the critical choices which allows Shepard to reach a compromise and please both parties. The paragon choice appeal to reason, while the renegade is a threat. Does it make sense, I ask, for a Shepard that have been a character that followed most the paragon route to be able to threat effectively both these characters, that have such strong feeling concerning the subject they are arguing about? Or the opposite, does it make sense for a Shepard that have been mostly a brute and ruthless soldier to appeal to their sense of reason? I say it does not because it's not about choices, it's about building a character that has a progression. And the R/P system is that progression. And let's not forget that you can very well reach that decision with both options available, but for that you need to create a Shepard that in the end it's reasonable for both of those choices to be accessible. The P/R doesn't make only two kind of character possible, it allows for any number of personalities. And it also make sure that a certain type of character won't be able to argue in the way that another one would, just like it is with real people.

 

 

I feel you're conflating personality traits with intentionality. Many complaints about the P/R system claim that it's unfair that P/R choices comes bundled with a set of personality characteristics that limit the range of possible roleplaying. If you aim for maximizing Paragon points you've accepted that path, but it means you can't be commanding and brusque in scenarios where that seems to be a perfectly "moral" alternative. Why can't you have preferences? Can't one be a smooth-talking Renegade who employs masterful rhetoric and subtle logical fallacies to get what he wants? Or a human supremacist who's really sweet to his race but an absolute dick to everyone else? Or a successful Paragon who has very strict boundaries concerning what shenanigans he tolerates from his crew?

 

Even if we accept the incompatibility of Paragon and Renegade traits as fact, the applications of Paragon/Regenade are often bizarrely inappropriate. We all know from ME2 that every store on the Citadel is Shepard's favorite one, and it provides a nice absurdist laugh. But isn't odd that Paragon Shepard, supposedly a bastion of heroism and caring, can't recognize he just gypped those shopkeepers with false promises? They're all under the impression that they have exclusive access to Shepard's publicized approval. It wouldn't take much effort to figure out that he nicely swindled them for discounts. These types of contradictions are scattered through the series, but more notably in 2 and 3, 

[goishen]

Yah, the only problem that I have with it is that sometimes you have to get enough points (a minigame without the minigame screens, like hacking or disabling locks in ME2).  At times, I felt like saying, "That sounds dense" to the council.  Yet, I couldn't because of the minigame tactic.

 

I don't really think that it's a problem with the Paragon/Renegade system in and of itself.  I think what most people are pissed off about is the actual minigame.

[cap and gown]

Yah, the only problem that I have with it is that sometimes you have to get enough points (a minigame without the minigame screens).  At times, I felt like saying, "That sounds dense" to the council.  Yet, I couldn't because of the minigame tactic.

 

I don't really think that it's a problem with the Paragon/Renegade system in and of itself.  I think what most people are pissed off about is the actual minigame.

 

No, I am pissed bout the system as well. Let's take Tali's LM as an example. Somehow the writers have decided that it is "renegade" for Shepard to tell Tali she will help her take her homeworld back, but "paragon" to tell her to look for a new home. WTF? So, you're telling me the whole "Take back Earth" thing in ME3 was renegade? What does that even mean in this context? And this is just one example, but it is the one that really stick out to me.

[Mcfly616]

On one hand I don't like that they tell you which options are paragon and which are renegade (the blue and red text). On the other hand, I like that ME1 and ME2 forced you to stay in character. I don't like the fact that in ME3, I can choose renegade dialogue and be a complete ******* the entire game, and at the end I can go completely out of character and choose the paragon options due to my high P/R score.

 

 

If the system is going to come back, they need to take into consideration the ratio at which we select paragon and renegade dialogue and branch the narrative and dialogue trees later in the game accordingly.

[goishen]

I dunno.  I think a good rpg will always tell you something about yourself.  Not what you decide to tell someone else just to stay in character.

[Mcfly616]

Rpg is about playing a role. If you **** all over people the entire game, the ability to be a stand-up good guy and shining example of morality shouldn't even be available to the player past a certain point. 

[spinachdiaper]

Nothing will top SWKotOR since ME and DA won't let you go evil

[God]

Rpg is about playing a role. If you **** all over people the entire game, the ability to be a stand-up good guy and shining example of morality shouldn't even be available to the player past a certain point. 

 

Morality is subjective. And for a lot of people, RPG is about creating a character, not playing a role. Creating a character that has elements of them into it (their own customized avatar). 

[Dr. Rush]

The morality system in ME trilogy is very flawed and should be scrapped. But I don't expect that to happen. Mass Effect is more about being an action/story game with tonal choices than being a roleplaying game. I would say, ME is more like Telltale's The Walking Dead games, where you have choices, but it is not a roleplaying game. And that is what the ME devs want to make, that is their vision, that is their business. But as long as they continue making morality systems and choices based on optimal vs suboptimal choices, they won't be asking their players to think or roleplay at all, only to metagame and pick the option that pats them on the back hard enough. Sadly, games like ME have taught people that "roleplaying" is just being a completionist errand-boy for NPCs, trying to befriend and appease every NPC they interact with without any regard for the character they are roleplaying and how that might result in moral and cognitive dissonance.

 

Eh, Bioware devs are smart enough to know this stuff, its just a matter of whether they want to push their audience into making and defining characters or if they want them to just casually skate through easy choices that makes them feel like narcissistic-errand-boy-heroes.

[Pasquale1234]

Rpg is about playing a role. If you **** all over people the entire game, the ability to be a stand-up good guy and shining example of morality shouldn't even be available to the player past a certain point.

It'd be nice if it were that simple - but these games put you in a lot of morally ambiguous situations - and in order to award P/R points, the devs have to make a lot of assumptions about your motives. Consider the choices you're asked to make on Noveria, for example.

Noveria exists for the sole purpose of performing research with no legal oversight or ethical scrutiny. A pure paragon, morally righteous Shepard might view the very existence of such a place as morally reprehensible - and might want to do everything possible to sabotage it. Allowing Anoleis to continue to bleed the profit margin would deprive investors like Saren of income, whereas removing him could contribute to its ongoing profitability and success. And so it goes.

As another example, a character like Patriarch is hardly a paragon of virtue - yet risking the lives of your squadmates to protect him is a paragon action, whereas sending him out to fight for himself is renegade. Either way, you're doing a favor for Aria T'Loak - the Pirate Queen of Omega.

Pretty much anything having to do with the genophage is... deeply divisive (to say the least). Mordin Solus is presented as the epitome of rational pragmatism, yet we see him struggle with it.

RPG players want to see choices with consequences, so the devs have created this system where they arbitrarily assign moral values - quality and quantity - in the form of P/R point awards. Since these points are used to allow or restrict content later in the playthrough, the system encourages heavy metagaming, and second-guessing the developer's intentions. That my character chose an option designated as paragon at decision point #14 does not make her less capable of performing an action designated as renegade at decision point #29 - yet that is the result of these mechanics.

Also - the ambiguity of the wording on the wheel (not to mention the completely blind P/R interrupts) means you never really know what your character will say or do when you make that selection. You only know whether the game judges it as a paragon, renegade, or neutral act. That tends to mean that you're playing more to the morality system than you are actually choosing your character's behavior (role-playing).

[KaiserShep]

I'd like to see the Paragon/Renegade system disappear entirely myself. I don't require a gauge to tell me if my character's being an ass. I'll remember if I shot some sucker when I didn't have to, or pushed some fool out of a window. It'd be nice if companions remembered these things and occasionally mention them if my dickish shenanigans starts to pile on. That makes a bigger difference than a light side dark side meter. I don't want to be able to just do random insane things with impunity.

[Vazgen]

I don't think that P/R system should be removed. The bars give a clear idea of your character's morality. I don't want my character's morality (in gameplay perspective) be defined behind the scenes. That said, I don't want dialogue options be locked with morality. Instead I'd like to have an option to fail. So if you play the entire game as a Renegade and try to pass a "knightly" paragon check the NPC calls you out on BS. 

Paragon/Renegade can serve as an indicator of player's character morality but it should not affect how he acts in any way. In ME1 you put points into a skill and can pass every P/R check in the game regardless of morality. ME2 has it even worse, you basically have to pick paragon or renegade options to be able to pass tougher checks later in the game. ME3 has autodialogue that I think is a bad way to go. It is based on your reply (paragon or renegade) to maintain dialogue coherence but I'd rather not have it in ME:Next. However, ME3 did something right by introducing Reputation and removing Paragon/Renegade locks from dialogue options.

[cap and gown]

. That said, I don't want dialogue options be locked with morality. Instead I'd like to have an option to fail. So if you play the entire game as a Renegade and try to pass a "knightly" paragon check the NPC calls you out on BS. 

 

 

This could be done with alternative systems to the P/R system.

1) Faction allegiances. Let's say you pick the mage side 4 or 5 times, then the Templars will not accept any deals from you. (In the ME universe, perhaps this might be Salarians vs Krogan. Other factions, of course could be added.)

 

2) NPC approval. If you constantly p!ss off some NPC then you won't be able to persuade them to do something. Maybe they even decide to betray you.

 

These two systems could also work in conjunction: each NPC belongs to a faction and doing something for or against that faction effects that NPC's approval.

[Googlesaurus]

This could be done with alternative systems to the P/R system.

1) Faction allegiances. Let's say you pick the mage side 4 or 5 times, then the Templars will not accept any deals from you. (In the ME universe, perhaps this might be Salarians vs Krogan. Other factions, of course could be added.)

 

2) NPC approval. If you constantly p!ss off some NPC then you won't be able to persuade them to do something. Maybe they even decide to betray you.

 

These two systems could also work in conjunction: each NPC belongs to a faction and doing something for or against that faction effects that NPC's approval.

 

It would be nice if such a vision came with information asymmetry. Not only would factions freak out when they discovered you're been dealing with their rivals, but you'd have to hide your deals from them to retain approval. Which would force you to take certain actions to keep them in the dark and so on. I always felt that was something missing from the portrayal of Shepard's Spectre role in ME1, but heavily alluded to in the Shadow Broker DLC.