583 réponses à ce sujet

[StanojeZ]

As a former DM (something I assume a lot of you other participants here also have experience with), I totally agree with the statements above. You can't allow "total freedom" in PnP RPGs; you prepare for some freedom of choice (how much depending on setting and situation), and your main task is to guide the players across the possible paths with as little direct intervention as possible. Players wanting to deviate too much should be "nudged" in a better direction, and if they don't follow this advice, they have to pay the consequences - sometimes meaning death of their character.

 

 

Instead of killing their characters, you could just tell them "hey, I didn't expect you to go in this direction, let's pick it up again next week when I had some time to prepare".

[Lebanese Dude]

*snip*

 

To be honest I made that initial statement about pen and paper RPGs allowing more freedom from the aspect that it is rather malleable in comparison to video games which are more "hard-coded" for a lack of a better word. Of course this is theoretical because as you said, in practice limits need to be imposed for coherent storytelling.

 

Awesome post.

[Cyonan]

Instead of killing their characters, you could just tell them "hey, I didn't expect you to go in this direction, let's pick it up again next week when I had some time to prepare".

 

You could.

 

but it's more fun to just drop an asteroid on them.

[PhroXenGold]

Rocks fall. Everyone dies.

[Fiskrens]

Instead of killing their characters, you could just tell them "hey, I didn't expect you to go in this direction, let's pick it up again next week when I had some time to prepare".

Yes. Killing characters because of "bad" choices should be avoided as much as possible, on second place is the locked door / "you can't go there"-card. This is where PnP always will excel over CRPG.

But regardless of how, I'd probably still try to guide the characters back to main campaign, simply because most thought and work has been done there, and I would like the players to experience that.

[bEVEsthda]

I recommend you get Pillars of Eternity if you want a real role playing experience.

 

Whereas I recommend you get Pillars of Eternity if you want an archaic role playing experience.

(Good game though, no doubt about that)

[pdusen]

Yes. Killing characters because of "bad" choices should be avoided as much as possible, on second place is the locked door / "you can't go there"-card. This is where PnP always will excel over CRPG.

But regardless of how, I'd probably still try to guide the characters back to main campaign, simply because most thought and work has been done there, and I would like the players to experience that.

 

In the PnP games I run, if the players insist on straying too far off-course, what I usually do is just change the background circumstances on-the-fly (for example, I may move where the villain is or where some artifact is hidden). Effectively, I move the actual goal over to where the players are heading. Of course, the stuff I change are things that they haven't found out yet, so they are none the wiser.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As a former DM (something I assume a lot of you other participants here also have experience with), I totally agree with the statements above. You can't allow "total freedom" in PnP RPGs; you prepare for some freedom of choice (how much depending on setting and situation), and your main task is to guide the players across the possible paths with as little direct intervention as possible. Players wanting to deviate too much should be "nudged" in a better direction, and if they don't follow this advice, they have to pay the consequences - sometimes meaning death of their character.

I can't imagine this being a problem for low or even mid-level parties. And in my experience, high-level adventuring is extremely rare. How many AD&D characters even make it to level 8? The game's rules are remarkably unforgiving at low levels. GURPS's rules really never stop being unforgiving. The Battletech rules are rife with heavy weaponry that will one-shot any person outside a Mech. In Paranoia, character death was a regular occurrence.

And low-level parties don't generally have the capacity to break the world. So I would expect them to be given considerable freedom. And a good DM should provide the players' characters incentives to follow along. The characters should do what they do because they want to, not because the DM wants it.

In this case, I'd say joining Coryphiepants definitely would be steering too far away from the course, ultimately resulting in some kind of game over. Why? Because it totally ruins the world of Thedas as we know it - and at the same time most possibilities of future DA games. Good luck explaining that to the fans.

And in tabletop setting, why was that character allowed. The one time I accept blatant DM intervention is during character creation. There are certain types of characters or sets of motivations that don't fit the campaign, and shouldn't be allowed. This is one area where I think CRPGs have generally failed, as they don't explain to the players in advance what sort of character they need to create.

I think Dragon Age Keep perfectly displays the pros and cons here ; there are a lot of choices in every DA game, it's just that in order to keep it possible to make the world coherent for future games, these choices have to be on a more detailed scale. Just think of all possible effects from the ending(s) in DA:O and how much "cleaning" that had to be done to keep the world intact.

What this does is demonstrate how limiting the world state import is. Imagine how much more freedom we could be afforded in each game if the world didn't need to be kept coherent (and could just be reset).

[Lebanese Dude]

What this does is demonstrate how limiting the world state import is. Imagine how much more freedom we could be afforded in each game if the world didn't need to be kept coherent (and could just be reset).

 

That works for stand-alone or linear games really. I can't see it working for DA since the games follow a progressive storytelling path across consecutive installments.

 

The practical limitations aren't as big as some people claim them to be either. At most a major choice or two is influenced by previous games. For example in DA the biggest impact came down to the identity of Hawke's friend. Most of the tangible divergence occurs in minor content which helps create a consistent setting for the player. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

That works for stand-alone or linear games really. I can't see it working for DA since the games follow a progressive storytelling path across consecutive installments.

The practical limitations aren't as big as some people claim them to be either. At most a major choice or two is influenced by previous games. For example in DA the biggest impact came down to the identity of Hawke's friend. Most of the tangible divergence occurs in minor content which helps create a consistent setting for the player.

I like the Keep for that reason, but I don't see why every aspect of each game needs to be consistent with the Keep.

I'd like to see failure conditions. The Keep obviously needs to assume success in the previous games (much as it does now with the previous games' DLC, even if that went unplayed), but that shouldn't mean that playing that content needs to end in victory.

With side-quests, we typically have the option not to do them, and the Keep respects that. But the Keep does not respect the skipping of DLC sidequests. If your Hawke didn't go find Corypheus, too bad - canon Hawke did, and your world-state is stuck with that.

So why not allow that for all content?

[Uccio]

So you come into a thread where people are debating certain aspects of RPGs and just say 'No' without saying why.

 

You either didn't read any of this thread or you are in the 'I didn't like DA2 or DA:I so they are not RPGs' camp 

 

It its the former, why bother commenting when you didn't read the thread? if its the latter I'm guessing you turn into the 'I'm taking my ball and going home' kid when things don't go your way. 

 

I and others in this thread have listened out why DA:I is an RPG, if you have a real reason for thinking its not, please tell us, so you can add to the conversation. 

 

Yeah, I will take my ball and leave. But anyway, typing from a smart phone is a pain in the backside so I tend to keep it short.

 

Short version: Combat mechanics (action combat, no tactics) and character leveling (no attributes). Those are the reasons for me. DA2 was kind of in the same corner but since it lacked companion customization it falls in the grey area, though it still is more a rpg than DAI.

[Br3admax]

I played BG2 recently to see what made it such an amazing RPG that DA:I didn't have. I was sorely disappointed to find out the main difference is I can play a psychochic nutcase. 

[Cyonan]

That works for stand-alone or linear games really. I can't see it working for DA since the games follow a progressive storytelling path across consecutive installments.

 

The practical limitations aren't as big as some people claim them to be either. At most a major choice or two is influenced by previous games. For example in DA the biggest impact came down to the identity of Hawke's friend. Most of the tangible divergence occurs in minor content which helps create a consistent setting for the player. 

 

The limitations can be significant, though.

 

The reason why none of the major choices seem to influence much is because they can't stray too far from the intended path at the end of the game. Everybody's world state needs to be in roughly the same area for the next game, or else it's too much work.

 

If they allowed for failure states like Sylvius mentions, we could have a lot more choice and variation in our choices within the game itself. It'd just come with the knowledge that your choice isn't going to be supported as a viable choice in the next game.

[Lebanese Dude]

I'd like to see failure conditions. The Keep obviously needs to assume success in the previous games (much as it does now with the previous games' DLC, even if that went unplayed), but that shouldn't mean that playing that content needs to end in victory.
 

 

This is true.

 

 

With side-quests, we typically have the option not to do them, and the Keep respects that. But the Keep does not respect the skipping of DLC sidequests. If your Hawke didn't go find Corypheus, too bad - canon Hawke did, and your world-state is stuck with that.
 

 

Well the Corypheus arc isn't a side quest. DLC may be optional to buy but that does not mean that they are insignificant in the grand plot of the series. If you simply consider them as their own independent "game installment" (which they technically are), then it makes sense for them to be part of the canonical setting. You simply didn't buy DAI chapter 2, for example.

[Lebanese Dude]

The limitations can be significant, though.

 

The reason why none of the major choices seem to influence much is because they can't stray too far from the intended path at the end of the game. 

If they allowed for failure states like Sylvius mentions, we could have a lot more choice and variation in our choices within the game itself. It'd just come with the knowledge that your choice isn't going to be supported as a viable choice in the next game.

 

You can never stray too far from a canonical plotline if you want to have any coherent storyline. DA (and ME) games follow a progressive storyline with a grand plot that arcs over several games. There will ALWAYS be a canonical path. The major choices (which lead to divergence) exist within the context of the game where they matter. If that's not true then that's essentially saying that we're playing games to play the next game. Some choices (those in the Keep) carry over with varying degrees of significance to preserve some sense of illusory cohesion and consistency.

 

It doesn't mean that the choices are irrelevant by the way. The choices you made influence the setting and remain true irrespective of whether they are tangible in the next game. You made Harrowmont King? He's still king. It's still your choice. It's still your setting.

 

---

 

Compare DA to TES games. While the Elder Scrolls series have a progressive setting, there isn't much need for a cohesive setting because each game occurs in a different era. Therefore each game can act as a fresh slate. Also, the main plots are more or less independent. 

 

Meanwhile, the DA games occur in rapid succession. DA2 even overlaps with DAO. They all occur in the same 40-ish years. The events of DAO influence those of DA2 and those of DA2 (and DAO) influence those of DAI. There needs to be some consistency in the setting.

 

---

 

Now when it comes to failure states, what can be done is to implement paths that lead to them but aren't canonical in any way such as Shepard dying at the end of the suicide mission. 

 

This has already been implemented in DAI and you can see several threads that complain about it. The "choice" of the Divine isn't a choice at all. You can support who you want but, assuming that you don't metagame, the result comes down to the passive (dialogue) and active choices you made earlier in the game.

 

Therefore, you wanting Leliana to be Divine but making choices that end up putting Vivienne as the Divine is technically a failure state because it is a direct consequence of YOUR choices that fails to meet your intended result.

 

Is it subtle? Perhaps, but not every failure state needs to have death and destruction. Sometimes it's political

[Cyonan]

You can never stray too far from a canonical plotline if you want to have any coherent storyline. DA (and ME) games follow a progressive storyline with a grand plot that arcs over several games. There will ALWAYS be a canonical path. The major choices (which lead to divergence) exist within the context of the game where they matter. If that's not true then that's essentially saying that we're playing games to play the next game. Some choices (those in the Keep) carry over with varying degrees of significance to preserve some sense of illusory cohesion and consistency.

 

It doesn't mean that the choices are irrelevant by the way. The choices you made influence the setting and remain true irrespective of whether they are tangible in the next game. You made Harrowmont King? He's still king. It's still your choice. It's still your setting.

 

---

 

Compare DA to TES games. While the Elder Scrolls series have a progressive setting, there isn't much need for a cohesive setting because each game occurs in a different era. Therefore each game can act as a fresh slate. Also, the main plots are more or less independent. 

 

Meanwhile, the DA games occur in rapid succession. DA2 even overlaps with DAO. They all occur in the same 40-ish years. The events of DAO influence those of DA2 and those of DA2 (and DAO) influence those of DAI. There needs to be some consistency in the setting.

 

---

 

Now when it comes to failure states, what can be done is to implement paths that lead to them but aren't canonical in any way such as Shepard dying at the end of the suicide mission. 

 

This has already been implemented in DAI and you can see several threads that complain about it. The "choice" of the Divine isn't a choice at all. You can support who you want but, assuming that you don't metagame, the result comes down to the passive (dialogue) and active choices you made earlier in the game.

 

Therefore, you wanting Leliana to be Divine but making choices that end up putting Vivienne as the Divine is technically a failure state because it is a direct consequence of YOUR choices that fails to meet your intended result.

 

Is it subtle? Perhaps, but not every failure state needs to have death and destruction. Sometimes it's political

 

The problem isn't that there is a canonical path, it's that BioWare wants to have choice plus a canonical path that acknowledges every major choice you make which limits what kind of major choices you can offer in the game.

 

Plus not every choice is even kept around. Killed Leliana? Sorry, no you didn't. Killed the Rachni? Guess who's back! Made Anderson the counselor? Not anymore. I find the whole "consistency" argument a bit silly given that they keep rendering them irrelevant like this.

 

In KotoR I could usurp the big bad and make a Sith Empire that rules the galaxy with me on the throne, which is something that I can't do in Inquisition. I have to be the light side Jedi that saves everybody and becomes the hero of the people because that's the intended canonical save import state.

 

However they could have let you do the dark side and simply made it a failure state in the eyes of the save import like Shep's death in ME2. Annoying for people who like the dark side? Maybe, but the alternative is giving them no choice about it at all.

 

I don't consider the divine thing a failure state, as failure states result in not being able to continue. You can still keep going with Vivienne as the divine, the game just did something kind of weird in assigning her to the role.

[Lebanese Dude]

The problem isn't that there is a canonical path, it's that BioWare wants to have choice plus a canonical path that acknowledges every major choice you make which limits what kind of major choices you can offer in the game.

 

This isn't true. The plot progresses no matter what choices you made. There is no practical limitation. The Blight always ends no matter who dies. The Mages and Templars have a schism no matter what Hawke does etc..

 

 

Plus not every choice is even kept around. Killed Leliana? Sorry, no you didn't. Killed the Rachni? Guess who's back! Made Anderson the counselor? Not anymore. I find the whole "consistency" argument a bit silly given that they keep rendering them irrelevant like this.

 

 

First of all, the overarching plot isn't static. It can be reinterpreted and rewritten over time for various reasons ranging from writer turnover to realizing that a previous idea sucked. Sometimes a previously minor character can become more important. Some completely disappear. The plot isn't static, but it is still coherent.

 

Second of all, the consistency remains no matter what is "retconned". 

 

You didn't kill Leliana. You thought she was dead.  You left her for dead. The decapitation sequence is a random gameplay element.

The new Rachni Queen is a clone and has an entirely different personality with entirely different consequences should you interact with her.

Anderson resigns because he couldn't handle it anymore. In retrospect, this was rather obvious.

 

 

 

In KotoR I could usurp the big bad and make a Sith Empire that rules the galaxy with me on the throne, which is something that I can't do in Inquisition. I have to be the light side Jedi that saves everybody and becomes the hero of the people because that's the intended canonical save import state.

 

The Kotor games are technically stand-alone games, as each game has its own independent sequence of events in the established Star Wars universe. The choices you make are entirely removed.

This makes it more similar to TES games than DA and ME.

 

Now I agree that DA doesn't let you be psychotically evil but I fail to see how it doesn't let you establish your own "sith order". The choices you make throughout the game as well as the choices you make through the War table for the Inquisition are far more tangible than en illusory evil empire in Kotor could ever be. My Cadash dwarf, through his choices, essentially turned the Inquisition into a money-making puppeteer that served his own purposes. Naturally, Corypheus was in my way.

 

 

I don't consider the divine thing a failure state, as failure states result in not being able to continue. You can still keep going with Vivienne as the divine, the game just did something kind of weird in assigning her to the role.

How is it weird? In retrospect it's entirely obvious why the choices make sense in supporting one divine over another.

Putting Gaspard on the throne is obviously going to work against Vivienne (political) while helping Cassandra (militaristic). They're not vague either. Cassandra and Vivienne make it clear who they support if you don't care for lore to begin with.

 

I agree that it would be cool to have a choice to side with Corypheus but it would only work if you lose in short order. This sort of failure already happens if you're a stubborn character who refuses to play along with the Game in the Winter Palace. If you're asking for ACTUAL significant divergence on a path that in no shape or form contributes to the overall setting then you're playing the wrong game. There is way too much story to tell in very little time in order to devote any significant number of resources (and they are very significant) to a non-critical path that won't transfer to the next chapter in the story. This is, again, best left to stand-alone or sandbox games.

 

Regarding my definition of a potential failure state, I have to ask you one question. Assuming you aren't meta-gaming, are you comfortable importing the DA state with the Divine that you don't agree with into the next game? From empirical  evidence, most people would say no. This makes it a failure state even if it's not official.

[Cyonan]

This isn't true. The plot progresses no matter what choices you made. There is no practical limitation. The Blight always ends no matter who dies. The Mages and Templars have a schism no matter what Hawke does etc..

 

That's kind of my point. The Blight has to end, that's the limitation.

 

BioWare wanted to account for all save states, which means that no matter what you do the Blight has to end because that's what is needed in the future games.

 

 

First of all, the overarching plot isn't static. It can be reinterpreted and rewritten over time for various reasons ranging from writer turnover to realizing that a previous idea sucked. Sometimes a previously minor character can become more important. Some completely disappear. The plot isn't static, but it is still coherent.

 

Second of all, the consistency remains no matter what is "retconned". 

 

You didn't kill Leliana. You thought she was dead.  You left her for dead. The decapitation sequence is a random gameplay element.

The new Rachni Queen is a clone and has an entirely different personality with entirely different consequences should you interact with her.

Anderson resigns because he couldn't handle it anymore. In retrospect, this was rather obvious.

 

Stories aren't static and aren't expected to be. Not sure where you're getting that I think nothing has to change.

 

Your point was that choices are imported through saves to provide coherency and consistency to the story and the player's choices. Sure you can come up with a BS reason for just about anything, but it doesn't feel consistent when you kill Leliana and then they go "Oh well, she wasn't dead dead".

 

The Kotor games are technically stand-alone games, as each game has its own independent sequence of events in the established Star Wars universe. The choices you make are entirely removed.

This makes it more similar to TES games than DA and ME.

 

My point with KotoR is that because they weren't designing the game to have every choice be viable in a sequel, they could offer a much wider range of choices for the ending state of the galaxy. You could go Emperor Palatine on everybody if you wanted to because they weren't planning on a next game to need to acknowledge that.

 

How is it weird? In retrospect it's entirely obvious why the choices make sense in supporting one divine over another.

Putting Gaspard on the throne is obviously going to work against Vivienne (political) while helping Cassandra (militaristic). They're not vague either. Cassandra and Vivienne make it clear who they support if you don't care for lore to begin with.

 

I agree that it would be cool to have a choice to side with Corypheus but it would only work if you lose in short order. This sort of failure already happens if you're a stubborn character who refuses to play along with the Game in the Winter Palace. If you're asking for ACTUAL significant divergence on a path that in no shape or form contributes to the overall setting then you're playing the wrong game. There is way too much story to tell in very little time in order to devote any significant number of resources (and they are very significant) to a non-critical path that won't transfer to the next chapter in the story. This is, again, best left to stand-alone or sandbox games.

 

Regarding my definition of a potential failure state, I have to ask you one question. Assuming you aren't meta-gaming, are you comfortable importing the DA state with the Divine that you don't agree with into the next game? From empirical  evidence, most people would say no. This makes it a failure state even if it's not official.

 

It's just weird because you support one person but the game picks somebody else. In either case, I don't consider it a failure state if you can continue and the player not liking the outcome doesn't count as "not able to continue" =P

 

KotoR actually handled it with a full switch to the dark side in the last 1-2 hours of the game, which is something you could do in Inquisition as well. Towards the end actually work towards usurping the big bad and completing his work yourself instead of just killing him and making the world better.

 

Obviously the Keep would just assume that you did save the world because that's what is needed for the next game, otherwise you create too many paths to have to deal with.

 

They might need to change around the Inquisitor's dialogue to allow for more evil options to make it fit nicer, but that's an entirely different discussion.

[Maker Be Damned]

Why even give us choices if the choices are meaningless? I'd rather it be just strait dialog. Please don't pretend my choices matter that crap annoys the heck out of me.

[o Ventus]

 

If they allowed for failure states like Sylvius mentions, we could have a lot more choice and variation in our choices within the game itself. It'd just come with the knowledge that your choice isn't going to be supported as a viable choice in the next game.

 

Cue the horde of people complaining that they can't import their fail save/upload it to the Keep, and crying about how Bioware would be forcing them all to play a certain way.

[AlanC9]

Cue the horde of people complaining that they can't import their fail save/upload it to the Keep, and crying about how Bioware would be forcing them all to play a certain way.

Good point. Let's dispense with incorporating saves altogether.

[Eelectrica]

Why even give us choices if the choices are meaningless? I'd rather it be just strait dialog. Please don't pretend my choices matter that crap annoys the heck out of me.

They can have meaning for your character, but not everything has to impact the world.
I'd like a whole heap of minor choices that are isolated to that playthrough/character just for role playing purposes. Have a few decisions that have a far reaching impact if they must.

[Giantdeathrobot]

The limitations can be significant, though.

 

The reason why none of the major choices seem to influence much is because they can't stray too far from the intended path at the end of the game. Everybody's world state needs to be in roughly the same area for the next game, or else it's too much work.

 

If they allowed for failure states like Sylvius mentions, we could have a lot more choice and variation in our choices within the game itself. It'd just come with the knowledge that your choice isn't going to be supported as a viable choice in the next game.

 

But then you add the problem that some people's world states will be canon, and others with be SOL. I doubt that's going to decrease the number of people who think Bioware is forcing you to play a certain way, unless you can plan which world states will be unusable (such as the main character being dead, but even then in DA that's no guarantee since they aren't reused). Imagine if, for example, only Divine Vivienne carried over to the next game. The outrage would be pretty glorious.

 

As for the KOTOR example, it didn't stop KOTOR 2's galaxy from looking the exact same whenever you were a white knight perfect Jedi or Darth Vader ahead of its time. You got tidbits about Revan, but the reality of game development means that whatever happens in KOTOR 1 cannot influence the game too much, save import or no.

 

Of course, the counterpoint to that would be to drop save import altogether, but Bioware is not going to do that after setting up the Keep, and having save import a staple of their game design since Mass Effect 1. 

[Lilithor]

To be honest I made that initial statement about pen and paper RPGs allowing more freedom from the aspect that it is rather malleable in comparison to video games which are more "hard-coded" for a lack of a better word. Of course this is theoretical because as you said, in practice limits need to be imposed for coherent storytelling.

 

Awesome post.

That is precisely the reason I hate coherent storytelling. Players should tell THEIR stories. DMs should provide challenges. A DM like that guy is just a frustrated Hollywood writer like Bioware writers, obviously. It is not about telling a story at all, it is about providing a moderate resistance for players goals. As a DM you are not God, you are more like Loki. Guess that's why once I was DM people always asked me to be the DM over and over again. "I want to do that" was always a yes with me, as long as the player managed to. But of course if you are so egocentric that telling your story is the only thing that matters you you would do the same **** Bioware did with Inquistion.

In PnP freedom could and should be 100%, in electronic games 100% is not even close to possible but they should focus on providing at least 3 major routes, one "as intended", one "the opposite of the intended" and another one more "whatever I want to, I don't care if the world ends". It is easy to program 3 paths, it is also easy to let players pick choices from one and then switch to another. But not if you wan players to sit and watch your precious movie.

Problem is electronic RPGs never evolved to provide options they evolved to become interactive novels. Almost no RPG allows you to be evil, they spend money on a lot of boring things instead of providing different paths for the player to the point that ACTION GAMES surpassed RPG in letting the players take different paths. It is just sad. RPG became a **** where epic is above choice. Meeting old elves and gandalf became more important than crawl to Sauron begging for the shadow to take the world even if it cost your life. Or killing Sauron and becoming the ultimate evil, whatever...

But, does it matter that people like you spoil RPGs thinking good story is better than choice? Nope. I can play NWN2 and be as good or as bad as I want. I can betray everybody and become godlike powerful striking fear even in the heart of gods.

How many more choices we would have if Bioware sacrificed useless things like exploration and graphics to provide choice? Imagine 25% sized maps with last gen models, like DA2 (or even worse, like PoE). But yeah, I got it, "player is but a puppet for me to enjoy myself telling my own story for nacisistic amusement".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well the Corypheus arc isn't a side quest. DLC may be optional to buy but that does not mean that they are insignificant in the grand plot of the series. If you simply consider them as their own independent "game installment" (which they technically are), then it makes sense for them to be part of the canonical setting. You simply didn't buy DA2 chapter 2, for example.

I did, actually.  I just could never come up with a good reason why my Hawke would go do that.  There was no coherent Hawke I wanted to play that would pursue that lead and go looking for Corypheus.  My Hawke wanted to blow up the Chantry.  My Hawke wanted to help Merrill with the Eluvian.  My Hawke had no interest in whatever Legacy was.

 

And that's a problem.  If the PC does something, the PC has to want to do it, or be forced into it.  Neither was true with Legacy.  BioWare simply assumed that the monkey would pull the lever to get the prize.  And that's not good enough.

 

The Warden should also not have to pursue Morrigan (though mine did).