111 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

I thought we'd already moved past this point to the broader, less trolly point?
 

And this is why I'm all for RPG choices and differences being more about 'reasonable people disagreeing' rather than 'uber-radical/incompatible stances by extremists.'

 

Instead of 'mage verse templars', I'd love to delve into a debate about what 'magic should serve man, not rule him' should mean in practice. There's a lot of ways to argue it- and even the Tevinter rational (magic for the greater good) has merit, even if it's execution is blatantly flawed and hypocritical as a rationalization for power grabs. Hopefully the new College vs Circle dynamic will get us closer to 'reasonable disagreements.'

 

Some people are thin skinned enough that they take any questioning as treason, true. And I say **** them. Let's get some good moral delimmas by having two good, but ultimately incompatible, options, rather than 'well from my perspective you're evil!' stuff.

 

Okay, let's have such a discussion. You and I have been on opposing points of mages and templars for years, but I don't think you and I have ever really discussed that line meaning. 

 

Now, philosophically speaking, we can discuss how it may be a moral imperative to rise above the natural wants and desires of our own nature and urges, such as that we are not ruled by them. Avoiding addictions or managing them so that they don't control our lives. Have the urge to smoke, you can quell it if you so choose and not be ruled by the nicotine, have an addiction to a certain activity or food, then being able to abstain if the situation requires it.

 

With magic, not only is it imperative that mages learn to control their magic, because the lore makes it quite clear that an untrained mage is as much a danger to themselves as they are to those around them. There is also the very issue of how much power a mage can possibly exert or the level of influence over others with tools that others simply do not have. 

 

In Southern Thedas, this is largely negated because the mages have, at the time of the Nevarran Accord, willfully exiled and separated themselves from the larger society and established their own insular ones within the Circle's and watched and advised by the templars. But over time the system failed due to religious dogma and heavy abuse and many mages feeling constrained and all they saw were the templars and not the reasons for the system. It's greatest weakness, in my opinion, was giving the templars so much direct authority and so completely isolating its members from the outside world that to the average mage the conditions inside the circle was the only world they knew and had no knowledge or understanding on how to handle freedom or autonomy when they finally had it. 

 

In Tevinter there is the issue with blood magic. In order to survive the dangerous world of the magisterium's politics, one must be able to one-up their rivals. And when you need more power, you'll always find ways to justify the need for more beyond that. 

 

It's part of the human condition and is not limited to mages. 

 

So, for me, magic must serve man and never rule over him means that the mage must be able to control themselves and their power safely, but also be knowledgeable enough to know it's not a be-all-end-all source of power. It comes with a knowledge of how to exist in a world where not everyone is equal as people are created unequally, and finding ways to use their power to the benefit of others without being ruled by their own need for more power to accomplish goals. 

 

Essentially follow the way of the open palm from Jade Empire and avoid tyranny from within. 

 

A general saying "charge" or a Howe saying "Kill all Couslands, purge the alienage" caused just as much death and destruction as a few mages freaking out, especially with the veil sundered in the orphanage shows that magic related incidents need not involve mages at all, and this same philosophy can apply to others in power, but differs in the source of power. Mages having magic, a noble having soldiers sworn to their service and power over a local economy. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Mass Effect Noir Game. Basically, completely in the style of the first half of Lair of the Shadow Broker or even Halo 3: ODST.

 

An old BSN poster I called friend once had a really cool concept for one.

 

Basically, you were a C-SEC cop who went undercover and chased the enemy between the Citadel and Omega. In the Citadel, law and order ruled, and you could call in support for overwhelming assistance. In Omega, you didn't have that, and had to keep a head low, but you didn't have to follow all sorts of rules.

 

Based on your choices, you'd find the macguffin (a Prothean map of some secret/hidden relays) and end up with different factions depending on your RP choices along the way. Give it to C-SEC/the Council, and you get promoted up C-SEC. Give it to the Alliance, and you return to C-SEC but the Council plays politics against your racial bias. Or you could stay in the Terminus. Give it to Cerberus, and be rewarded. Or give it to Aria, and get really rewarded and become one of her lieutenants.

 

Good sort of variety by the end. I thought it had promise.

[Dean_the_Young]

The idea of colonization of planets brings me ideas of the British Empire with their spreading "Enlightenment" the parallels could be really interesting.

 

That's a good point- especially since we have our Andromedea precursors as well.

 

 

Though, going on this metaphor-

 

I'd laugh if there were a prothean tomb, all sealed up with 'don't go in there' stickers and everything, and breaking it open revealed husks and indoctrination devices.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how to avoid the railroading unless there is a damned if you do damned don't scenario. I do think though there can be choice in the "fix" through the paragon fix and the renegade steamroll.

 

 

Total ignorance is probably best in those cases- but it kinda railroads a bit of emotion onto the PC (of the 'I feel responsible for this terrible accident' sort of thing).

[Dean_the_Young]

Uh-huh. Right. And where does exactly does this leave the thematically critical resolution of those big decisions?

 

That would depend on how they're resolved, obviously. That's an abstract different from the idea of using companions as peer pressure on players.

[BabyPuncher]

That would depend on how they're resolved, obviously. That's an abstract different from the idea of using companions as peer pressure on players.

 

Oh no it's not.

 

The narrative giving two standpoints more or less 'equal' validity is not going to amount to much if a resolution enunciates one as superior to the other.

[KaiserShep]

The idea of colonization of planets brings me ideas of the British Empire with their spreading "Enlightenment" the parallels could be really interesting.

We could become a legendary creature, like Columbus!

[RandomSyhn]

We could become a legendary creature, like Columbus!
 

"I claim this planet in the name of humanity."

"Pathfinder, there are intelligent species already living here."

"So?"

[Dean_the_Young]

Okay, let's have such a discussion. You and I have been on opposing points of mages and templars for years, but I don't think you and I have ever really discussed that line meaning. 

 

Now, philosophically speaking, we can discuss how it may be a moral imperative to rise above the natural wants and desires of our own nature and urges, such as that we are not ruled by them. Avoiding addictions or managing them so that they don't control our lives. Have the urge to smoke, you can quell it if you so choose and not be ruled by the nicotine, have an addiction to a certain activity or food, then being able to abstain if the situation requires it.

 

With magic, not only is it imperative that mages learn to control their magic, because the lore makes it quite clear that an untrained mage is as much a danger to themselves as they are to those around them. There is also the very issue of how much power a mage can possibly exert or the level of influence over others with tools that others simply do not have. 

 

In Southern Thedas, this is largely negated because the mages have, at the time of the Nevarran Accord, willfully exiled and separated themselves from the larger society and established their own insular ones within the Circle's and watched and advised by the templars. But over time the system failed due to religious dogma and heavy abuse and many mages feeling constrained and all they saw were the templars and not the reasons for the system. It's greatest weakness, in my opinion, was giving the templars so much direct authority and so completely isolating its members from the outside world that to the average mage the conditions inside the circle was the only world they knew and had no knowledge or understanding on how to handle freedom or autonomy when they finally had it. 

 

In Tevinter there is the issue with blood magic. In order to survive the dangerous world of the magisterium's politics, one must be able to one-up their rivals. And when you need more power, you'll always find ways to justify the need for more beyond that. 

 

It's part of the human condition and is not limited to mages. 

 

So, for me, magic must serve man and never rule over him means that the mage must be able to control themselves and their power safely, but also be knowledgeable enough to know it's not a be-all-end-all source of power. It comes with a knowledge of how to exist in a world where not everyone is equal as people are created unequally, and finding ways to use their power to the benefit of others without being ruled by their own need for more power to accomplish goals. 

 

Essentially follow the way of the open palm from Jade Empire and avoid tyranny from within. 

 

A general saying "charge" or a Howe saying "Kill all Couslands, purge the alienage" caused just as much death and destruction as a few mages freaking out, especially with the veil sundered in the orphanage shows that magic related incidents need not involve mages at all, and this same philosophy can apply to others in power, but differs in the source of power. Mages having magic, a noble having soldiers sworn to their service and power over a local economy. 

 

I don't really believe in any single meaning of the line- it's something so maleable and open-ended that it could be used for pretty much anything. Which is kinda the point.

 

But in the context of College vs. Circle debate on the subject, here's how I'd frame it.

 

 

The College interpretation would focus on the literal interpretation - 'magic', not 'mages'- to argue that there's no prohibition on mages ruling, and that the only 'invalid' magics are the addictive/mind-controling ones. So blood magic is out, obviously, and an emphasis on free will and freedom means even addictive stuff like lyrium for Templars is frowned upon- not just because Templars are unwanted, but because it's morally abhorrent. (Add to this 'lyrium is blood magic!' from the Titan revelation.)

 

With mage freedom to rule, the Tevinter-esque justification of 'serving the public good' would be a natural, and reasonable, and even moral position to rally around. The idea of letting mages try and grow their magic to do the most good possible- with that argument of 'utility' becoming a lever to increase mage power so that magic can be more beneficial and effectively used. It's the classic beuracracy argument- the bueracracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy- with the justification of serving the public good.

 

 

The Circle interpretation focuses on the traditional Andrastian interpretation of 'mages shouldn't rule'- with a point at the history of how mage rulership gradually tolerates, even encourages, systemic abuse of magical power on the basis of magic and the pursuit of more of it. While it's an obvious defiance of the literalism, they can point at how literalism fails in practice elsewhere. Tevinter practically has a breeding program in which the prospect of magic rules over who sleeps with who (and who it's acceptable to sleep with). Seers are possessed, and lose parts of themselves and are ruled by the influences of the spirits they join with. And the Avaar who follow their gods- ruled by magic, in a sense.

 

For the Circle interpretation, the 'serve man' would lead to the question of 'who can justify a mage using their powers'- and with mage autonomy suspect, the justifying authority needs to be an outside authority. The Chantry, the Circle, whoever- as long as it's not reliant on the mage personally, because the appeal of magic twists anyone as they seek more magical power for the sake of more ability, and thus are being ruled by the magic (having it change their lives) rather than the other way around.

[Dean_the_Young]

Oh no it's not.

 

The narrative giving two standpoints more or less 'equal' validity is not going to amount to much if a resolution enunciates one as superior to the other.

 

So don't. Have them be equally valid.

[Dean_the_Young]

"I claim this planet in the name of humanity."

"Pathfinder, there are intelligent species already living here."

"So?"

 

"Are they capable of calculus? No? Liberate them."

[dragonflight288]

Oh no it's not.

 

The narrative giving two standpoints more or less 'equal' validity is not going to amount to much if a resolution enunciates one as superior to the other.

 

It most certainly would to the gamer. For example, take companion A giving a reason for not supporting these colonists in need of aid because we only have enough resources to deal with one issue and recommends we give it to the local military so they can put down the raiders in the area causing the colonists problems in the first place and thus deal with the cause, but companion B argues that while it would solve the immediate problem it would also mean many colonists would starve, freeze or lack medical supplies and so would die of exposure or injuries and if the colony loses its members it doesn't matter if the raiders are wiped out or not as there would not be a colony to save.

 

Both solutions solve the problem, but if implemented well, have far-reaching consequences with its share of positives and negatives that the players sees, and the emotion a gamer may feel based on which outcome they prefer would lead to the individual thinking the one option is superior at the emotional level. 

 

May not in the grand scheme of things, but that's the beauty of video games and rpgs. They appeal to both the hearts and the minds of the players. I know when I play Dragon Age or Mass Effect there are some choices I just don't want to make because I'm emotionally invested but I know logically it may turn out better than the preferred solution, but emotion gets in the way. 

[dragonflight288]

"Are they capable of calculus? No? Liberate them."

 

Mordin: Never use live subjects capable of calculus. Simple rule, never broke it. 

[BabyPuncher]

So don't. Have them be equally valid.

 

So what resolution is the narrative going to make out of such 'equally valid' conflicts throughout the story?

 

There does have to be one.

 

Both solutions solve the problem, but if implemented well, have far-reaching consequences with its share of positives and negatives that the players sees, and the emotion a gamer may feel based on which outcome they prefer would lead to the individual thinking the one option is superior at the emotional level.

 

There isn't any resolution here.

[Dean_the_Young]

So what resolution is the narrative going to make out of such 'equally valid' conflicts throughout the story?

 

There does have to be one.

 

That there's no perfect answer, and that's okay.

 

Whenever Mass Effect did a 'freedom vs. security' argument, (or, 'nice guy vs. Mr. McJerkFace'), Paragon always won because the Renegade rationals were always wrong. The risks never materialized, or the harms were insignificant. Paragon was downright utopian in most respects, and had the classic RPG flaw of 'doing nice things is the best way to get strong', which begged the question of why everyone in the universe wasn't Paragon.

 

When you set a delimma as mutually incompatible extremism, someone is going to be wrong. 'My justification is that Mages will resort to blood magic.' 'No we won't, and thus your justification is invalid.' 'We need to torture autistics in case of war with the Geth.' 'Turns out, we really don't.'

 

But thing is, you don't have to set delimmas like that. Both sides can be wrong- or both sides can be right. You don't need a winner and a loser.

[dragonflight288]

I don't really believe in any single meaning of the line- it's something so maleable and open-ended that it could be used for pretty much anything. Which is kinda the point.

 

But in the context of College vs. Circle debate on the subject, here's how I'd frame it.

 

 

The College interpretation would focus on the literal interpretation - 'magic', not 'mages'- to argue that there's no prohibition on mages ruling, and that the only 'invalid' magics are the addictive/mind-controling ones. So blood magic is out, obviously, and an emphasis on free will and freedom means even addictive stuff like lyrium for Templars is frowned upon- not just because Templars are unwanted, but because it's morally abhorrent. (Add to this 'lyrium is blood magic!' from the Titan revelation.)

 

With mage freedom to rule, the Tevinter-esque justification of 'serving the public good' would be a natural, and reasonable, and even moral position to rally around. The idea of letting mages try and grow their magic to do the most good possible- with that argument of 'utility' becoming a lever to increase mage power so that magic can be more beneficial and effectively used. It's the classic beuracracy argument- the bueracracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy- with the justification of serving the public good.

 

 

The Circle interpretation focuses on the traditional Andrastian interpretation of 'mages shouldn't rule'- with a point at the history of how mage rulership gradually tolerates, even encourages, systemic abuse of magical power on the basis of magic and the pursuit of more of it. While it's an obvious defiance of the literalism, they can point at how literalism fails in practice elsewhere. Tevinter practically has a breeding program in which the prospect of magic rules over who sleeps with who (and who it's acceptable to sleep with). Seers are possessed, and lose parts of themselves and are ruled by the influences of the spirits they join with. And the Avaar who follow their gods- ruled by magic, in a sense.

 

For the Circle interpretation, the 'serve man' would lead to the question of 'who can justify a mage using their powers'- and with mage autonomy suspect, the justifying authority needs to be an outside authority. The Chantry, the Circle, whoever- as long as it's not reliant on the mage personally, because the appeal of magic twists anyone as they seek more magical power for the sake of more ability, and thus are being ruled by the magic (having it change their lives) rather than the other way around.

 

So, in essence, you are approaching from the perspective that the College focuses on the individual and the nature of magic vs  the Circle and its focus on the society and the fundamental flaws of human nature approach. 

 

That was a fascinating read, and thank you for sharing that.

 

I have to ask, do you see a way where the two philosophies may compromise and coexist? 

 

The Circle's were tolerated and celebrated at their founding as it gave mages a lot more freedoms than they had hitherto possessed, at first only being allowed to use magic to light candles and dust hard to reach places, and the mages went into it willingly, but a thousand years later they rebelled because they felt suffocated and powerless in a system imposed on them. 

 

I see a conflict in at what point does security so overtakes liberty that it has lost its reason and becomes a bearacracy in and of itself, as we saw with the Seekers and Templars ruled by a religious dogma and utter belief in their own divine right over mages, the same divine right that magisters claim as helping the others through their magic, and the point where liberty and freedom taken to the extreme that anarchy or a coup is the result. 

 

Do you believe a balance can be reached in regards to the approaches on "how" magic should serve and not rule?

[dragonflight288]

 

 

 

There isn't any resolution here.

 

So?

 

The problem is solved in two different ways and each have their own consequences. 

 

If you want a perfect solution to problems that resolves everything entirely you may be disappointed. there will never be one outside of children's stories or bad writing.

[Dean_the_Young]

So, in essence, you are approaching from the perspective that the College focuses on the individual and the nature of magic vs  the Circle and its focus on the society and the fundamental flaws of human nature approach. 

 

That was a fascinating read, and thank you for sharing that.

 

 

Was it? I'm not in the right head to notice.

 

But yeah. Sounds right. I expect the College to focus on 'libertarianism' magic politics- big emphasis on individual (mage) freedom, with the capitalistic justifications of how this will be better for everyone, but also an excuse/justification for selfishness. Circle focuses on more community-centric considerations, with a distrust of the individual.

 

 

 

I have to ask, do you see a way where the two philosophies may compromise and coexist? 

 

 

I expect they'll coexist regardless. I don't think they're intrensically set to kill eachother, though. It's a political power squabble, not a fight to the death.

 

Honestly, what I expect to happen is that the Circles and College squabbling will be subsumed into national politics. They'll compete for the favor and support of the crowns. In some countries they'll win, in others they'll lose. As the countries get involved in mage politics, and vice versa, the Circle's traditional 'mages are above national politics' norm will be destroyed, and national power centers will subsume the local mage groups into their system.

 

Basically, the philosophies will co-exist because they'll be dominant in different countries.

 

 

 

The Circle's were tolerated and celebrated at their founding as it gave mages a lot more freedoms than they had hitherto possessed, at first only being allowed to use magic to light candles and dust hard to reach places, and the mages went into it willingly, but a thousand years later they rebelled because they felt suffocated and powerless in a system imposed on them. 

 

I see a conflict in at what point does security so overtakes liberty that it has lost its reason and becomes a bearacracy in and of itself, as we saw with the Seekers and Templars ruled by a religious dogma and utter belief in their own divine right over mages, the same divine right that magisters claim as helping the others through their magic, and the point where liberty and freedom taken to the extreme that anarchy or a coup is the result. 

 

 

 

I think the security dillima has more or less been settled by fait accompli. The Circle survived. The College exists. It's not outsiders who matter now, but the mages themselves.
 

 

Do you believe a balance can be reached in regards to the approaches on "how" magic should serve and not rule?

 

 

No- but more because I expect the question to become obsolete when the Kingdoms start influencing and dominating the local colleges or Circles.

 

Once they do, the question will transform into 'how much will the crown influence the mages', and vice-versa.

[BabyPuncher]

That there's no perfect answer, and that's okay.

 

Whenever Mass Effect did a 'freedom vs. security' argument, (or, 'nice guy vs. Mr. McJerkFace'), Paragon always won because the Renegade rationals were always wrong. The risks never materialized, or the harms were insignificant. Paragon was downright utopian in most respects, and had the classic RPG flaw of 'doing nice things is the best way to get strong', which begged the question of why everyone in the universe wasn't Paragon.

 

When you set a delimma as mutually incompatible extremism, someone is going to be wrong. 'My justification is that Mages will resort to blood magic.' 'No we won't, and thus your justification is invalid.' 'We need to torture autistics in case of war with the Geth.' 'Turns out, we really don't.'

 

But thing is, you don't have to set delimmas like that. Both sides can be wrong- or both sides can be right. You don't need a winner and a loser.

 

What you absolutely do need is a resolution. So what is that going to be, if it's not a revelation of who is right and for what reason why?

 

The reason why everyone wasn't Paragon is because everyone can't be. Good things do not happen because the player selects the 'good' option. They happen because of the qualities of the character. Hence the incredible importance of a well written protagonist.

 

You do understand the way good and evil generally work in fiction? Evil is given the obvious advantages. The numbers, the weapons, the brutality, and so forth. And the whole point of the good characters winning regardless to is enunciate the qualities which aren't obvious. The qualities and advantages which are subtle. The ways that being good makes people strong that don't give immediate, obvious, material benefits.

 

Unfortunately, most stories do not do a particularly good job at this.

[BabyPuncher]

So?

 

The problem is solved in two different ways and each have their own consequences. 

 

If you want a perfect solution to problems that resolves everything entirely you may be disappointed. there will never be one outside of children's stories or bad writing.

 

Do you even understand what resolution I'm talking about?

 

I'll humor you. Okay, you have a problem that can be solved two different ways. Both have consequences. The actually important question is - so what? What is this supposed to do or mean? Why should I care? Is the existence of a problem that can solved in two different ways supposed to meaningful or powerful by its mere existence? What is it about this that makes it meaningful writing or a good story?
 

[Dean_the_Young]

What you absolutely do need is a resolution. So what is that going to be, if it's not a revelation of who is right and for what reason why?

 

 

That both people are right, and other peoples reasons can be valid even if they disagree with you.

 

 

 

The reason why everyone wasn't Paragon is because everyone can't be. Good things do not happen because the player selects the 'good' option. They happen because of the qualities of the character. Hence the incredible importance of a well written protagonist.

 

Nah, in Mass Effect good things happen because you chose the 'good' option. The world bends around to reward Shepard as much or more for being good, even if Shepard doesn't actually have any sepcial role in getting rewarded further.

 

 

 

 

You do understand the way good and evil generally work in fiction? Evil is given the obvious advantages. The numbers, the weapons, the brutality, and so forth. And the whole point of the good characters winning regardless to is enunciate the qualities which aren't obvious. The qualities and advantages which are subtle. The ways that being good makes people strong that don't give immediate, obvious, material benefits.

 

 

In video games, however, it's often the inverse. Especially in the RPG genre, in which you can often get more/better rewards from being nice than you can by being selfish get.

 

And, of course, fiction is pretty stupid in how it approaches good and evil in general, so I don't see much reason to hide behind common ineptness. More games need evil to be subversive and subtle, rather than brash and cruel. And games especially need to confront the real crux of moral strength: being a good person is hard, and generally because it's not recognized or rewarded. Because it means standing up to nice people, sympathetic people even, and not just assholes.

[dragonflight288]

What you absolutely do need is a resolution. So what is that going to be, if it's not a revelation of who is right and for what reason why?

 

The reason why everyone wasn't Paragon is because everyone can't be. Good things do not happen because the player selects the 'good' option. They happen because of the qualities of the character. Hence the incredible importance of a well written protagonist.

 

You do understand the way good and evil generally work in fiction? Evil is given the obvious advantages. The numbers, the weapons, the brutality, and so forth. And the whole point of the good characters winning regardless to is enunciate the qualities which aren't obvious. The qualities and advantages which are subtle. The ways that being good makes people strong that don't give immediate, obvious, material benefits.

 

 

 

Do you even understand what resolution I'm talking about?

 

I'll humor you. Okay, you have a problem that can be solved two different ways. Both have consequences. The actually important question is - so what? What is this supposed to do or mean? Why should I care? Is the existence of a problem that can solved in two different ways supposed to meaningful by its mere existence?
 

 

 

I think I see what's going on here. You are approaching conflict and resolution from the classic heroes journey trope and the need for the hero or protagonist to overcome great obstacles to overcome an otherwise overwhelming force of some kind, and the resolution must in effect directly affect the world around the hero and the decisions made in order to be meaningful. 

 

Resolution does not necessarily mean proving or disproving someone or some situation right or destroying a wrong. It may very well be the crises, large or small, is solved and life goes on, may be better or may be worse, and sometimes resolution may only directly influence the protagonist on an emotional level when nothing changes on the physical level. The conflict may be entirely internal to a character and how they develop and the resolution is how they deal with the crises and move on, or the problem overwhelms them and they fall no matter the form.

 

Making something meaningful in an RPG will be different to every gamer and there is no objective "right" or "wrong" way to have a conflict or how to resolve said conflict. 

[BabyPuncher]

That both people are right, and other peoples reasons can be valid even if they disagree with you.

 

That is not a resolution at all. That reveals or enunciates literally absolutely nothing the player was not already entirely familiar with. The entire point of any meaningful conflict of 'equal validity' is that both sides are 'someone right' and both have 'valid reasons.'

 

This does nothing to resolve the conflict at all, it's pointlessly marching it onwards.

 

 

In video games, however, it's often the inverse. Especially in the RPG genre, in which you can often get more/better rewards from being nice than you can by being selfish get.

 

Oh God, not this crap. This is solely the domain of the inevitable distinction between the skilled protagonist and possibly suffering protagonist and the reality of the video game player who may not be skilled at all and certainly shouldn't be suffering playing a game. Nothing whatsoever to do with writing.

 

Let's get this out of the way right now. The player does not 'earn' things in the story. He does not 'work' to get a better outcome. He does not 'pay' or 'suffer' for making 'bad choices' or anything of the sort.

[RandomSyhn]

Do you even understand what resolution I'm talking about?

 

I'll humor you. Okay, you have a problem that can be solved two different ways. Both have consequences. The actually important question is - so what? What is this supposed to do or mean? Why should I care? Is the existence of a problem that can solved in two different ways supposed to meaningful or powerful by its mere existence? What is it about this that makes it meaningful writing or a good story?
 

I can be meaningful for the the PCs development in the eyes of the player. How they solve the same problem tells you something about them. The fact that the problem is solved isn't as important as how it is solved. Games are an immersive medium and having choices that affect the thought process of the player help to make the story. That won't always make both options meaningful writing right of the bat, there still has to be some effort into making the player even care beyond "I want to win the game". So having multiple solutions can be meaningful but like most things it has to be handled properly by the writers and in the context of the game.

[Vol_Tang_Clan]

Do you even understand what resolution I'm talking about?
 
I'll humor you. Okay, you have a problem that can be solved two different ways. Both have consequences. The actually important question is - so what? What is this supposed to do or mean? Why should I care? Is the existence of a problem that can solved in two different ways supposed to meaningful or powerful by its mere existence? What is it about this that makes it meaningful writing or a good story?

How about fun, earth-clan? Ever heard of it? Of course not. You must be a hanar, or a reaper.

[Dean_the_Young]

That is not a resolution at all. That reveals or enunciates literally absolutely nothing the player was not already entirely familiar with. The entire point of any meaningful conflict of 'equal validity' is that both sides are 'someone right' and both have 'valid reasons.'

 

This does nothing to resolve the conflict at all, it's pointlessly marching it onwards.

 

A pity for you, I suppose, if you can't see it.

 

 

 

 

Oh God, not this crap. This is solely the domain of the inevitable distinction between the skilled protagonist and possibly suffering protagonist and the reality of the video game player who may not be skilled at all and certainly shouldn't be suffering playing a game. Nothing whatsoever to do with writing.

 

Let's get this out of the way right now. The player does not 'earn' things in the story. He does not 'work' to get a better outcome. He does not 'pay' or 'suffer' for making 'bad choices' or anything of the sort.

 

 

 

Sounds like you need some better reading, then. There's totally gripping stories out there, and they can totally be done through games.

 

Any game that can make the player experience catharsis, for example, is an emotional challenge. A reader, or a player, can definitely work, and suffer, their way through an emotional rollercoaster.