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.