Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Imaginative and Mechanical Sides of Games

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Personally, I absolutely loathe time limits. Having it in a few side quests where it makes sense is okay, though. Or having it in a main quest, but not solving the quest in time doesn't lead to GAEM OVAR because there'd be an alternate solution.

One such timed quest I've had in my head for some time as part of a main quest was that you had to find an abducted noblewoman who was your main questgiver at the beginning of the game. Apparently she has attracted the attention of a certain organisation - one you want to track down and destroy, anyway. The player'd get about 6 of in-game time to find her (it would all be in one city) alive and unharmed. Take 7 or 8 days, she's been tortured and heavily wounded, but alive. Take 9 or more days... you'll only find her corpse, and you won't find out why they took her and miss out on the information she might have had, but you'd still be able to progress normally (only with the main quest being more difficult because you miss out on valuable info).
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
Excommunicator said:
I like the idea behind this thread and the various things being brought up, but there is a hell of a lot that is being swallowed up by general ambiguity and lack of clarity.

Just at the end of the discussion I am seeing people trying to talk about tying "roleplaying considerations" with game mechanics, and Shemar and mondblut both going against this idea, which simply makes me wonder:
What are your understandings of these mythical "roleplaying considerations"?
What in your mind(s) separates a "roleplaying consideration" from something that isn't?

Without defining these things, there is a pretty good chance you are all talking about the same phrase but with different definitions, so how about you clear it up so the discussion means something?

To me it is quite clear. Every time a character build option comes attached to the behavior of the character you have a situation of tying "roleplaying considerations" with game mechanics. Alignment/deity restrictions for classes is such an example. Divine powers tied to following a Deity's ethos is another. As I mentioned above this practice is both outdated and failed. A character's powers, abilities, skills, perks etc. should never come with strings attached. How a character behaves in-game should never have an effect on character build options, past, present or future.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
Alex said:
Let's do a little though experiment. Imagine Wizardry 6. Only, instead of the various races and classes, you have a pokemon for each race/class combo. Instead of changing classes, you "evolve" and each spell is renamed to match abilities of a pokemon game. Graphics are, of course, changed to fit the new theme. Don't you agree that this game would be worse than Wizardry 6, even if the mechanics and level design remains the same?

I would hate it, but strictly for aesthetic reasons. But replace elves and rangers with space marines, norse gods or Ahnenerbe scientists, and I wouldn't see difference. Hey, if Doom was about pokemons shooting pokemons, I'd hate it too. It wouldn't be "worse" (the game is still exactly the same, is it not?), just ruined by a particular theme or presentation I can't stand. I'd hate it exactly the same if it had ascii graphics, and for very same reason.

What I am trying to do here is to create new strategic options using the imaginative side as reference. Don't you think that doing this might yield better games, even is just from the gameplay perspective? Or do you think this is actually weakening the core game (combat)? Or something else entirely?

First off, what does that have to do with "imaginative side"? A ruleset can be as abstract as fucking chess or as realistic as, well, as far as you can make it. Second, as long as core gameplay isn't sacrificed, any additions to it are welcome, realism, fluff, dialogues, whatever. Keyword being "as long as".

Sure, but you do thing these choices would be interesting, right?

Not bloody likely, more in the way of "hello mr. magic karma-increasing beggar, please accept these 100 coins one at a time to make me a paragon of kindness again, right after I set that kid aflame and raped her puppy - or was it the other way around?". Like you don't know how the games work :lol:
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Well, I do approve on NPCs reacting to what the player does, though.

It could range from a simple "I've never seen an elf dress like that before" to "You helped our orcish community recently... and thought all humans were racist. Thank you." to "Begone, apostate! You have violated the sacred vows of our order, and are banished from our temple henceforth! Nobody who serves *GodOfPurityOrSomething* faithfully shall ever trade with you again!"

It shouldn't have any effects on character development in itself, no, but people expect certain things of certain races, and in the case of Paladins and Clerics who serve a certain deity, there are rules and vows that have to be kept, and breaking them could lead to your character being declared anathema, leading to all temples of your former faith refusing service. It might have a positive effect on other factions or party members, though.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
Excommunicator said:
Just at the end of the discussion I am seeing people trying to talk about tying "roleplaying considerations" with game mechanics, and Shemar and mondblut both going against this idea

How did you get that impression? I am not against "tying roleplaying considerations with game mechanics"; if you want to strip a paladin of his powers if his karma goes below zero or something, by all means, you're welcome.

What I am saying is that such a stripping is just another mechanic to play with, find exploitable holes in, find a way around and so on, and ultimately will serve the exact opposite of "roleplaying". Fuck me if it will make me actually "act like a paladin", it will only make me metagame and abuse the system more. Can't kill an innocent? Lol, how about setting a trap for him, or luring a monster at him? Karma going down? Here I come to grind you, mr. karma-increasing thingy. And so on. Almost in words of late mr. LaVey, games are written by men, and what man created, another man can destroy.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
mondblut said:
Excommunicator said:
Just at the end of the discussion I am seeing people trying to talk about tying "roleplaying considerations" with game mechanics, and Shemar and mondblut both going against this idea

How did you get that impression? I am not against "tying roleplaying considerations with game mechanics"; if you want to strip a paladin of his powers if his karma goes below zero or something, by all means, you're welcome.

What I am saying is that such a stripping is just another mechanic to play with, find exploitable holes in, find a way around and so on, and ultimately will serve the exact opposite of "roleplaying". Fuck me if it will make me actually "act like a paladin", it will only make me metagame and abuse the system more. Can't kill an innocent? Lol, how about setting a trap for him, or luring a monster at him? Karma going down? Here I come to grind you, mr. karma-increasing thingy. And so on. Almost in words of late mr. LaVey, games are written by men, and what man created, another man can destroy.

That is my view also (and comes from someone who has been a DM for many many years and has to deal with that crap). RP considerations in exchange for more power is 'fail'. It never encourages RP it always encourages meta-gaming and trying to exploit the system. A player should be free to play the character they want without having to worry about losing character build options because of it. That is the ONLY way to encourage RP/immersion. The moment you make a player sacrifice his character's behavior at the altar of this power or spell or skill, the cause of RP is lost.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,157
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
Maybe when it's force-fed by the game screaming "I am software, and this software is locking you out of Tornado Fireball spell because you've been a bad boy!", it really becomes cringe-worthy.

But otherwise, it seems unavoidable that in a self-respecting RPG, you're going to lock yourself out of a number of options through your in-game behavior.

For instance, if you make a melee character, and there's a martial arts master who can teach you a good move, he may know that you're a child killer and refuse to do so.

This is not the GAME punishing wannabe martial artist for unbecoming behavior, but a CHARACTER doing so.

The end result, however, is the same - you're deprived of the ability, just as you're locked out of of certain paths.

It seems that we approve the locked out paths, but not the locked out abilities.

The obvious solution to this is to always provide an "evil trainer". You see, there's this Kobra Kai instructor in Hell Valley, who will teach you this move BECAUSE you eat children.

He hates the little fuckers.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
There is a world of difference between being locked out of a minor/otpional in-game reward and being locked out of an entire class or build path. There is also an even bigger difference from being locked out from obtaining a specific new power to having a power you have already paid for (with XP, skill points, perk/feat slots, whatever) and been playing with, taken away.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,157
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
As can be seen from previous post, I do not disagree; just exploring the territory.

I've not actually encountered games taking your powers away for "unbecoming" behavior. That sounds like Fallout 3's lame karma system taken to new lows.

P.S. Alex, where's the new thread you've been working on? ;)
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
I was not attempting to disagree; just ponting out that it is a matter of scale, measure and execution (which your post also infers).

I do not know of any computer game that takes away powers, but previous incarnations of tabletop DnD did. I think DnD 3.5 has done the greatest damage in this as it was a system that mechanically allowed for uber-builds and rules exploitation, expecting DMs to be the arbitrers of balance and reason. The result was a system inherently broken as it pitted role playing in direct conflict with power building and DMs in an antagonistic rather than a cooperative relationship with players.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
shihonage said:
For instance, if you make a melee character, and there's a martial arts master who can teach you a good move, he may know that you're a child killer and refuse to do so.

And what exactly is "a child killer"?

See, ethics (alignment) and behaviour - and therefore "roleplaying" - are all about *intentions*. There is a world of difference between accidentally offing a little fucker who suddenly popped out in wrong place at wrong time to catch an unfortunate stray bullet, and repeatedly hitting him into groin with a crowbar until he dies. The former would make a paladin suffer through a severe atonement, the later spells instant damnation with no chance for redemption and becoming a marked man to his order for the rest of his life, and being raped with hot iron rods in his god's dominion for all eternity afterwards.

A computer, unlike a martial arts master, cannot read intentions, and never will. A computer only knows "little_fuckers_killed=true, gee, away with thee, despicable child killer". And when an unfortunate accidental manslaughter is no better than sadistic 1st degree murder, well, death to little fuckers then.

shihonage said:
I've not actually encountered games taking your powers away for "unbecoming" behavior. That sounds like Fallout 3's lame karma system taken to new lows.

Doesn't BG turn your paladin into "fallen paladin" stripped of powers if your reputation falls low enough? Never used a paladin, but I am pretty sure it does.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,157
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
mondblut said:
A computer, unlike a martial arts master, cannot read intentions, and never will. A computer only knows "little_fuckers_killed=true, gee, away with thee, despicable child killer". And when an unfortunate accidental manslaughter is no better than sadistic 1st degree murder, well, death to little fuckers then.

Wait, are you objecting to the very concept of the world's NPCs reacting to you based on your prior actions?

Because they will never be able to read your intentions, only observe results of your actions. It is the only mechanism by which the world can judge you, however in different ways depending on NPCs's beliefs.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
shihonage said:
Wait, are you objecting to the very concept of the world's NPCs reacting to you based on your prior actions?

Because they will never be able to read your intentions, only observe results of your actions.

Better not react at all than react inadequately - and they never react adequately, from "argh, this plasmagun-toting bunch in power armors just tried to pickpocket my watch, I'll attack them with my trusty knife and call the whole town to club them and pelter them with rocks" to "ohhh, thank you for saving my little daughter who went alone in that scary forest full of wolves, hmm, five or six months ago?" to "i'll never join a childkiller" (gee, Cass, wasn't it *you* who were too trigger-happy with SMG bursts before I dismissed you from the party, and now *I* am a childkiller?) to... you get the picture.

And back to my example, "accidentally hit" and "intentionally attacked" are two different results of two very different actions, yet there is no way to explain it to computer, particularly when AOE effects are concerned.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
NPC reactions to character actions in a game are usually based solely on single PC action (usually a single dialogue response or the result of a single quest), or at best at a numerical 'reputation' value. Reactions are also equally limited in scope and magnitude. Stripping a character of acquired powers is way off the scale at which a game should be allowed to make moral judgments on the PC's actions. Additionally, as it was pointed out above, the computer has no way of knowing intentions, reasoning, frame of mind, circumstances. It does not care if I saved a town by killing a child it brands me as a child killer and that's it.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
Shemar said:
Sure, tie the advancement of time to rests and/or world map trips instead of actual real time.

As for actual real-time timers, no there is no possible implementation that I would like.

Ok, for what is worth, I too think that a more "turn based" counter would be better.

Shemar said:
The idea of balancing additional power with 'role playing' limitations has no place in a computer game. It originated from the tabletop and even there it has never really worked.

Shemar said:
That is my view also (and comes from someone who has been a DM for many many years and has to deal with that crap). RP considerations in exchange for more power is 'fail'. It never encourages RP it always encourages meta-gaming and trying to exploit the system.

Actually, I think that a key point here is "balance". I agree with you that trying to balance combat abilities with elements on the more imaginative side is "fail". But balance was never my intention. Instead, I think that tightly binding character advancement rules can have many uses as creating situations and scenarios. I am not considering the issue of "balance" at all here. For example, we might have a game with a few classes, each "balanced" against each other in combat and each with different, strict role-playing requirements.

Shemar said:
There is a world of difference between NPC deciding the hate the character and acting accordingly and a dumb computer program playing 'god' messing with the character's own powers.

Shemar said:
A player should be free to play the character they want without having to worry about losing character build options because of it. That is the ONLY way to encourage RP/immersion. The moment you make a player sacrifice his character's behavior at the altar of this power or spell or skill, the cause of RP is lost.

Shemar said:
To me it is quite clear. Every time a character build option comes attached to the behavior of the character you have a situation of tying "roleplaying considerations" with game mechanics. Alignment/deity restrictions for classes is such an example. Divine powers tied to following a Deity's ethos is another. As I mentioned above this practice is both outdated and failed. A character's powers, abilities, skills, perks etc. should never come with strings attached. How a character behaves in-game should never have an effect on character build options, past, present or future.

Shemar said:
There is a world of difference between being locked out of a minor/otpional in-game reward and being locked out of an entire class or build path. There is also an even bigger difference from being locked out from obtaining a specific new power to having a power you have already paid for (with XP, skill points, perk/feat slots, whatever) and been playing with, taken away.

Ok, maybe I am off mark here, but would you say that your biggest problem with the idea is that it might cause problems with players who had a certain build but, during play, discovers that this build doesn't match his playing style? For example, a player might start playing with a paladin. He really likes the abilities and class features, but dislikes the way he needs to act. Then, he needs to choose between a role he doesn't like or a gameplay he doesn't like?

Because I can understand this view, but I think it only applies to some games. I think this is most compatible to games where combat (or something equivalent) is the most important part of the game, with PC "building" being the most important tactical decision. In these games, abilities are already tightly bound to "building". Binding them to story or NPC relations or behavior is going against the building aspect, which is "sacred". But I think other types of RPG may have this work well.

For example, suppose one game where the player is an officer in an army. The player gets to pick a few abilities and perks that changes how other officers interact with him (stuff like etiquette,good family, bureaucracy, etc). Then, depending on his relations with his superiors and subordinates, he gets different units and leaders he can use in combat. This setup has the whole combat ability of the PC depends on his relations with the NPCs. However, I think such game can work because the character "build" doesn't compete with the social network in determining abilities, it works on another level entirely. Games without a "build", but simply a starting point could work as well, I think.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
Sorry, people, this took way longer than I expected. I need to sleep now, but I will try to reply to everyone tomorrow.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
3,524
Okay, I understand where you are both coming from in terms of the roleplaying limitations idea, and I would mostly agree, except if there is an in-world explanation for why those powers are being taken away/restricted/limited/changed then I would accept that as part of the game, even if I preferred the alternative or thought it was a bad design decision.

But that is where it ends. The moment the designer starts working on a system that expects me to live according to rules or restrictions that they have not written into the setting and given a reasonable explanation for why the game is behaving that way then I don't accept it (e.g. acceptable would be omniscient god denying the powers due to the player having done something against god's wishes/principles or a government agent who actively sought out certain people to murder them when they were told not to do so, and having their gun taken away for a period of time). Of course, these things are reactions to undeniable facts in the game world and not intentions or motives being considered, and in the second example, if the game later prevented the character from picking up or using a gun found elsewhere (instead of providing consequences for doing so) then I would have a very big problem problem with that.

I also agree on all the disagreement with mechanics based generally around intent and motive. Such considerations never work, and should never be put in a game. Although, at times it is possible to eliminate all other possibilities in an isolated situation so that the intent behind a player action can be essentially known, e.g. if the king stays the whole game only in the the castle full of guards, even with a scripted assassination attempt later in the game, the game can know for certain if the player is behaving badly or with bad intent due to all other explanations being impossible (enemies simply can't get past the guards, there is no reasonable explanation for a sword being swung in the presence of the king, and the king would not be initiating any violence of his own). Those sorts of situations can have the possibilities ruled out, and when done properly it can quite easily approximate the motives of the player and react to them effectively.
From that basis we can then put in all sorts of consequences like charges for attempted assassination or expulsion from the castle or a death warrant, but only in-world explanations. Secretly take away 100xp every time such a situation is detected by the game and I would be very annoyed.
 

shihonage

Subscribe to my OnlyFans
Patron
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
7,157
Location
location, location
Bubbles In Memoria
mondblut said:
Better not react at all than react inadequately - and they never react adequately, from "argh, this plasmagun-toting bunch in power armors just tried to pickpocket my watch, I'll attack them with my trusty knife and call the whole town to club them and pelter them with rocks" to "ohhh, thank you for saving my little daughter who went alone in that scary forest full of wolves, hmm, five or six months ago?" to "i'll never join a childkiller" (gee, Cass, wasn't it *you* who were too trigger-happy with SMG bursts before I dismissed you from the party, and now *I* am a childkiller?) to... you get the picture.

And back to my example, "accidentally hit" and "intentionally attacked" are two different results of two very different actions, yet there is no way to explain it to computer, particularly when AOE effects are concerned.

Okay, so... do you have a solution for these issues, that can be implemented in computer RPGs with current generation technology?
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Seems to me this has become a discussion about good and bad setting and game design.

I've never liked the D&D "paladins and clerics get their magic straight from god, if god gets butthurt they lose it lol" system. I much prefer fantasy settings where gods do only seldomly interfere with mortals direcly, them granting their cleric superpowers is kinda eh.

Also, unexplained "you cannot equip item x because lol" occasions are fucking retarded. YOU ARE PALADIN, PALADINS DO NOT USE CROSSBOWS CAUSE THEY NOT HONORABLE WEAPON HURR isn't a bad idea in itself, but not being able to equip the crossbow is shit. NPCs remarking on it and your order punishing you when they see you having a crossbow equipped is great. You should always be able to do whatever you want, no matter what character you play. NPCs should react to what you do, though, but there is no valid reason whatsoever to bar the player from developing certain skills, learning certain spells or using certain items just because of a "character limitation". Character limitations are shit. What if I want to play a paladin went rogue? The game should fucking let me do it because simply deactivating the attack button when I hover it over children while non-paladins can attack them without problems is utterly retarded.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
shihonage said:
Okay, so... do you have a solution for these issues, that can be implemented in computer RPGs with current generation technology?

Yes. Stop pretending to be an all-encompassing make-believe life simulator and focus at what the game *can* do right: exploration and dungeon crawling.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
Excommunicator said:
I mostly understand where Alex is coming from even though it did seem a little bit stream-of-consciousness (...snip)

Sorry, I need to get better at editing myself.

Excommunicator said:
But that is where it ends. The moment the designer starts working on a system that expects me to live according to rules or restrictions that they have not written into the setting and given a reasonable explanation for why the game is behaving that way then I don't accept it (e.g. acceptable would be omniscient god denying the powers due to the player having done something against god's wishes/principles or a government agent who actively sought out certain people to murder them when they were told not to do so, and having their gun taken away for a period of time). Of course, these things are reactions to undeniable facts in the game world and not intentions or motives being considered, and in the second example, if the game later prevented the character from picking up or using a gun found elsewhere (instead of providing consequences for doing so) then I would have a very big problem problem with that.

I also agree on all the disagreement with mechanics based generally around intent and motive. Such considerations never work, and should never be put in a game. Although, at times it is possible to eliminate all other possibilities in an isolated situation so that the intent behind a player action can be essentially known, e.g. if the king stays the whole game only in the the castle full of guards, even with a scripted assassination attempt later in the game, the game can know for certain if the player is behaving badly or with bad intent due to all other explanations being impossible (enemies simply can't get past the guards, there is no reasonable explanation for a sword being swung in the presence of the king, and the king would not be initiating any violence of his own). Those sorts of situations can have the possibilities ruled out, and when done properly it can quite easily approximate the motives of the player and react to them effectively.
From that basis we can then put in all sorts of consequences like charges for attempted assassination or expulsion from the castle or a death warrant, but only in-world explanations. Secretly take away 100xp every time such a situation is detected by the game and I would be very annoyed.

This is something I am really not sure of, but I think that working on player intent might both be interesting and possible.

On the interesting side, I think there isn't too much that needs to be said. From the simulationist Pendragon, which has emotional traits and passions that determine how the player should act to the narrativist Burning Wheel, where beliefs are one of the most important aspect of the game, P&P RPGs often try to expose what is going on inside the character's head in order to make it part of play. Of course, this is problematic in CRPGs. In P&P, you need a GM to act upon what the players show about their characters, so it drives play in some way.

Of course, a computer can't be as good as a flesh and bone GM, but maybe we can make it not useless. For example, imagine we are trying to make a Pendragon CRPG, in a system similar to Storytron. We might have each emotional trait and each passion the PC has as special actors. They are able to influence the story, but they don't act directly. Instead, they act in a manner similar to fate.

Imagine the PC has a high "vengeful" trait. Then, the Forgiving / Vengeful actor might work to try to pick an NPC to piss off the player (or maybe pick one that already did). It tries to escalate the player's hate for the NPC, possibly making the player take a more and more vengeful stance toward him. Then, the trait might, at the last moment, show the player a redeeming side of the NPC, something big enough to make the player reconsider his action.

In the end, the emotional trait tries to make the player's choice very hard, while keeping the possible story-lines in the spirit of Arthurian tales. Whether the player takes the vengeance he desired, spares his opponent, or does something in between, the buildup should ensure that each choice is full of consequences.

On making the computer realize the player's intentions, I think that some interesting ways to do this could be achieved by having the computer talk to the player directly using the guise of the PC's conscience. For example, when the PC goes to sleep, the computer might create a dream world based on events the player did that he wants to know more about. If the player killed a little child, the dream world might have the same child being tortured, and the PC's reaction would indicate whether he was simply sadistic, if he killed by accident, or by necessity. Of course, ideally we would be less heavy handed, this is just an example.

Ok, I am out of time again. I will reply here again at night people, but I want to say I appreciate everyone who posted their thoughts here.
 

PandaBreeder

Educated
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
87
Location
Outside Time & Space
Complaining about paladins not being able to steal, murder, etc. is like complaining about wizards not being able to soak tons of damage, or be adept at melee combat. A paladin's code of conduct provides an interesting gameplay mechanic ( The player can't steal useful items, or lie to save his ass) and it makes sense in setting. I also don't understand this talk about roleplaying. If a player wants to roleplay, he will, even if it's impossible in a single-player game.
 

Shemar

Educated
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
260
Alex said:
Actually, I think that a key point here is "balance". I agree with you that trying to balance combat abilities with elements on the more imaginative side is "fail". But balance was never my intention. Instead, I think that tightly binding character advancement rules can have many uses as creating situations and scenarios. I am not considering the issue of "balance" at all here. For example, we might have a game with a few classes, each "balanced" against each other in combat and each with different, strict role-playing requirements.
No I don't think balance is the key element. Replace "more power" with "the power type that I want" as a motivation and you have the exact same issue. I talked about balance because that is how historically the tying of character build and RP happened. I think that any time you slave a specific power set to an expected character behavior you are essentially asking of players to choose between the character they want to RP and the character build they want, which is a design failure.

Ok, maybe I am off mark here, but would you say that your biggest problem with the idea is that it might cause problems with players who had a certain build but, during play, discovers that this build doesn't match his playing style? For example, a player might start playing with a paladin. He really likes the abilities and class features, but dislikes the way he needs to act. Then, he needs to choose between a role he doesn't like or a gameplay he doesn't like?

Because I can understand this view, but I think it only applies to some games. I think this is most compatible to games where combat (or something equivalent) is the most important part of the game, with PC "building" being the most important tactical decision. In these games, abilities are already tightly bound to "building". Binding them to story or NPC relations or behavior is going against the building aspect, which is "sacred". But I think other types of RPG may have this work well.
Yes, as you can see from above that is what I mean. However you are making a miscalculation. You are assuming a 'biuild' is an end on itself and that the only reason to want a specific build is to be 'better' in combat. That is wrong. First because many character builds/classes in many games offer a wide variety of non-combat advantages, even for the power player and second because beyond power level the build also defines mechanical play style, not just power level. For example (and I will give you a non-combat one) the fighter will bash the door, the thief will pick the lock and the mage will cast 'knock' or fireball the damn door. Your character build (once you strip the term of its often implied power building aspect) does not affect only combat, it affects every aspect of the game.

For example, suppose one game where the player is an officer in an army. The player gets to pick a few abilities and perks that changes how other officers interact with him (stuff like etiquette,good family, bureaucracy, etc). Then, depending on his relations with his superiors and subordinates, he gets different units and leaders he can use in combat. This setup has the whole combat ability of the PC depends on his relations with the NPCs. However, I think such game can work because the character "build" doesn't compete with the social network in determining abilities, it works on another level entirely. Games without a "build", but simply a starting point could work as well, I think.
Several things here. Your example game altready starts with a defined character, an officer in an army. So you are already setting the standards of behavior expected from the player. Also, you apparently are doing away with the RPG combat system in favor of a strategy game one. Finally you apparently use the word 'build' in a very different way than I do. There is no RPG game without a 'build'. A build is every decision you make in character generation and advancement. Unless you somehow invent a game that does not have character stats of any kind or character advancement and still call it an RPG, there is no RPG game "without a build'.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
3,524
Alex said:
In the end, the emotional trait tries to make the player's choice very hard, while keeping the possible story-lines in the spirit of Arthurian tales. Whether the player takes the vengeance he desired, spares his opponent, or does something in between, the buildup should ensure that each choice is full of consequences.

On making the computer realize the player's intentions, I think that some interesting ways to do this could be achieved by having the computer talk to the player directly using the guise of the PC's conscience. For example, when the PC goes to sleep, the computer might create a dream world based on events the player did that he wants to know more about. If the player killed a little child, the dream world might have the same child being tortured, and the PC's reaction would indicate whether he was simply sadistic, if he killed by accident, or by necessity. Of course, ideally we would be less heavy handed, this is just an example.

Ok, I am out of time again. I will reply here again at night people, but I want to say I appreciate everyone who posted their thoughts here.

So if I understand it correctly, it is putting the player in a position which guesses intent based on the action, then revisits the guess in a kind of secondary iteration of that moral dilemma, with the expectation that the second "round" will either confirm or discount the initial suspicions of the player's intent?

This is going to end in ra(pa)ge. Just imagine that the player killed the child the first time for fun (hey, everybody loves to kill children in games), and then decided the second time that they would let him go or play nice or whatever it is being staged in the dream.

What have we learnt? That the player accidentally killed the child? Not even close. He killed the child intentionally, the dream failed to pick that up because it never knew in the first place (how many people who kill the child initially even care enough about doing so to be consistent?).In the end we are left with nothing. This is the whole problem.

Introduce as many questions as possible, even asking directly "Did you kill the child intentionally?" and even that won't work. Why? Because no matter how many actions are flagged, one can still never know any of the intent for any of them. What if he lied? What if he just wanted to see what happened? What if he randomly picked one because he didn't care? What if someone else chose it for him? What if he had already tried the other options? What if he thought he would get the most rewards from that option?

It is a pipe dream this kind of stuff, and the more you look into it the more you will find that there are absolutely no solutions. Stay away from trying to predict intent unless you are strictly trying to appeal to generic low-intelligence mainstream audiences who are so predictable in what they think and feel that they will be blown away by a game that can read their minds.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom