Interview MCA's World of Choices & Consequenses

[CorpseZeb]

Garfunkel – yes, you give very accurate description – this is all about difference between PLAYING game and ROLE PLAYING game.

Playing is somewhat closed concept, strictly defined by developers. On the other side Role Playing is all about open attitude and vast range of possibilities, stand right next to player pleasure.

Ps. Kraszu, by your definition Borderlands is RPG too... Enemies way over your level are practicably impossible to kill.

 

[skuphundaku]

Re: MCA's World of Choices & Consequenses

(Just to get this out of the way, RPG hybrids such as FPSRPG(actionrpg's) are really out of the scope here, i have a tremendous love for System shock, and i would gladly call them RPG's but that paticular genre and similar uses different implementations where certain pieces are not relevant when we try to discuss the basis of an RPG, which is the analogue PnP kind)

I wasn't ignoring them when I made my comment because, for me, a RPG is all about choices and consequences. That is the case because C&C is the only trait that sets all flavors of RPGs apart from the rest of the genres. If you eliminate the C&C, you start having bad action hack&slashes with stats, bad 3rd person shooters with stats, bad 1st person shooters with stats, turn based tactics games, real time tactics games, adventure games etc.

That's the problem because, as you were saying, the technology is imperfect and the classic, pen&paper RPGs can't really be translated in computer game form. Not yet at least. And in this attempt at recreating the classic pen&paper RPGs in computer game form, the ability of the player to make choices beyond what class to use, what weapons to specialize in/what spells to learn i.e. tactical level decisions had to be removed in order for the computer RPG to be feasible. By doing that, what you get is grindy combat and just tactical level choices, but little real freedom. Only when you start adding choices and consequences, that dry, grindy shell starts to resemble the classic pen&paper RPGs. Well, the point of all of this is that C&C is what makes an RPG, not stats, or character-based skills, or loot, or turn based combat etc.

The problem is that just because they both defined as "skills" does not mean they can be regarded as the same(but i guess its this kind of logical shortcuts that made him a conservative).

Being Analytical is the same skill you use to PLAY these games, whether you are good at building character and using combat abilities.
Tha same personal skill Avalone was pointing towards.

Then mastermind comes in an argues that the codex is against the very challenge and gameplay factors we play these games for.(cuz were dumb løl)
And that includes the roleplay aspect, nobody mentions it because there never have been a CRPG that implement RPG roleplay as it should be(though thats a problem with technology) without the fags going "DARK AN EDHY STORYTELLING/EVERYGAME IS AN RPG", but Avalone as i see it is trying to tacle parts of that problem( if he can managed to implement Roleplay with character knowldge, without the player being able to stumble over the solutions that is).

So what you're saying is: if you use your analytical skills, that doesn't really count as using player skill because you would already be using your analytical skills to play the game in the first place. But that's a bit of a circular argument: you use your analytical skills to play the game because you need your analytical skills to play the game so why wouldn't you use your analytical skills to play yet another element of the game?

If everything would be character based and you would use your analytical skills just to craft the character, then playing a RPG would be almost like setting the initial parameters of a simulator and letting it run by itself while you watch... or almost like playing Gratuitous Space Battle: you deploy your fleet and then watch for 5 minutes as stuff happens and you have no control. I'm not saying that GSB has no merit, but that's not the way I want RPGs to go.

MCA isn't trying to create this kind of roleplay singularity where the game almost plays by itself without the need for player skill. Quite the contrary. Here's most of MCA's answer to question #7 of the interview:

The speech path should present more than a skill check challenge - there needs to be some other obstacle associated with it. I usually veer toward exploring conversations (asking about back history, reading lore, discovering evidence to a criminal case), exploring the environment (discovering an enemy encampment, learning a secret path into a fortress, discovering a rival caravan is already sending an emissary to scout a new trade route), or being able to draw logical connections between two topics... as an example, without it being given as a quest objective, realizing that the local historian who's obsessed with the Montaine family tree would be interested to learn of an exiled Montaine living in a remote city, and then returning to tell the historian that is a simplistic example of paying enough attention to a conversation and its topics and remembering who might be interested in that information... but again, this involves the player remembering and knowing who to speak to next. We sometimes do this within a dialogue tree - if a player has enough presence of mind to return to a previously-asked dialogue node once they've obtained information learned from a later node is an example of a speech-based challenge.

We did something a little different with the Fallout 3 pen-and-paper game and also with Alpha Protocol - in the Fallout PNP game, we allowed players with a high Speech to gain a little mini-dossier psychology profile of the temperament and the psychology of the person they were speaking to either by purchasing them or speaking to them for X period of time - what the NPC's triggers were, what they were uneasy about, what they got angry about, etc, and then once the player had that information, then they would attempt to use those triggers (without the need for a speech check) to manipulate a situation. As an example, when we were playing Boulder in Fallout PNP, Josh Sawyer's character Arcade got a dossier on the leader of the Boulder Dome, enough to realize that the leader would almost always refuse any request or become unreasonably angry if a comment was phrased as a challenge to his authority or any hint that he was managing the situation improperly - but almost any other comment that built up the leader's skill as a manager or drew in a compliment about the progress he made would almost always generate a favorable response, and then Josh could choose how he wanted the target to respond by structuring his comments and debates accordingly. If he wanted to make the leader mad and lose face in front of his followers, he knew how to do it - if he wanted to make the leader agree to a course of action, he knew how to do that, too, but there wasn't a "speech check" to win the conversation, only hints on how to manipulate it. Alpha Protocol did this a bit without a speech skill - if you gathered enough info on an opponent (intel), it began to give you a picture as to what attitudes (aggressive, suave, professional) and mission approach (violent, stealth, diplomatic) they respected and what they didn't, and the player could use that to navigate the conversation to achieve a desired result, even if that result was something that might seem unfavorable at first, like making the person angry.

And the whole question #9 and its answer:

9. Some might argue that speech checks represent the "correct" response, which isn't much of a choice. Any ideas on how to fix it, instead of, say, dropping it and replacing with something else?

I'm in favor of dropping Speech checks and using the system described above where it requires some thought on the player's part rather than clicking the "win conversation" button. Again, I prefer Speech giving insight into a character's personality, and then you have to use deduction to figure out what responses to choose based on what you know of the target's psychology, as described above.

This was part of the reason for the influence system in K2. It turned paying attention to a character's personality as a game in itself, aside from gathering Light Side/Dark Side reactions... suddenly, knowing what Canderous, Kreia, and Atton believe in and why made you pay attention to what responses you gave them beyond simply good or evil and added a new axis to the conversation choices.

If you don't want to get your reflexes, or your response under pressure tested in a RPG, that's fine. That's why a true RPG should have multiple ways of solving any given problem. If you can't or don't want to take the twitchy or stressful approach, you can do that, if you do, you can do that too. But I see no problem having such avenues to success available to the player. C&C baby!

 

[Kraszu]

Garfunkel – yes, you give very accurate description – this is all about difference between PLAYING game and ROLE PLAYING game.

Playing is somewhat closed concept, strictly defined by developers. On the other side Role Playing is all about open attitude and vast range of possibilities, stand right next to player pleasure.

Ps. Kraszu, by your definition Borderlands is RPG too... Enemies way over your level are practicably impossible to kill.

I was just commenting the combat, that is what the player skill comment was mostly about, no?

 

[CorpseZeb]

I was just commenting the combat, that is what the player skill comment was mostly about, no?

Yes... if combat has no action element, because "action" by "definition" turns off rpg'ness and turn on “real life/not virtual” own player skills. Combat, like gaming, maybe be playing or be role-playing.

 

[skuphundaku]

No, he's not right. It's still the character skill that matters since the player cannot type in that stuff. What MCA is talking about is a way to expand the speech-option, to make it more complex - instead of the player only estimating handful of dialogue choices and then hoping that his speech-skill will get him through, he now has to put in far more legwork.

See my answer to deus101's post.

It would be similar if combat was just auto-resolved with one button and a dev would say "hey, we could actually make it so the player has to equip his party and can then move them around in the combat and make decisions, sure it's more work but it would make the combat more engaging and rewarding".

Ie, natural path in the evolution of RPGs:
1. Get dialogue in-game
2. Get dialogue options that enable/disable stuff
3. Get skill that affects these options
4. Build content and mechanics around dialogue, so that it's not just one skill check

You contradicted your statement from the first paragraph that says that character skill rules supreme: you move from simple checks based on character skill to complex mechanics based a little, if at all, on character skill but much more on player skill. Take another look at the quotes I used in answer to deus101's post and you'll see that MCA talks exactly about making the character skill check less important and the player skill more important.

Minigames, like lockpicking, are usually worthless because they either circumvent character skill, ie good player can pick any lock anywhere any time no matter how bad his character is. Or the char skill determines whether you can even try it but then the rest is usually laughably simple so the whole thing is little more than annoying time sink (all minigames in ME and ME2).

No, that doesn't mean that they're worthless. It means that the way they're implemented isn't that great. Play Alpha Protocol on Recruit without investing any points in the Sabotage skill and show me the man who breezes through those 5 tumbler locks in 10 seconds. I'm not saying there isn't anybody like that out there, but if there is, he/she is really good at that and I see no reason why that ability shouldn't be rewarded. It's the same thing as in real life: some people are naturally good at some things and they work their asses off trying to get good at others and everybody has different levels of innate skills. If you're one of the lucky ones who are naturally better at something, there's no reason you shouldn't take advantage of that ability. That's exactly how the whole minigame thing is. The best method to approach this is to provide multiple feasible options to any given task.

As to your claim about player skill vs character skill - I find it entirely baffling. The whole point of an RPG is that you take a character that isn't you and then pit that character against the game through the mechanics of that RPG. If you want to dilute the character portion of that equation, go ahead but don't try to persuade other people that it's still an RPG. There's room for games between TOEE and Quake but this oh-so-modern trend to push all RPGs into that middle ground or even all the way next to Quake is both frustrating and annoying and it doesn't help that twits come around trying to preach that it's somehow a good way to go or something.

Games are about escapism but most games (i.e. games without choices & consequences) are, actually, just a simulacrum of escapism because you don't have any choice. You just follow a corridor and use the experience just for its cathartic potential. Choosing to gib that Shambler in Quake with the rocket launcher or with the thunderbolt is just a pittance because, while being a choice, is an insignificant one. You only have true escapism when the game empowers you with agency by having real, non-Biware style, choices and consequences for these choices.

You say that you don't want a character that is you. That's a personal preference. Some roleplay characters completely different from themselves, others roleplay characters as close to themselves as possible, yet others play it 9 times and go the whole spectrum: from very close to very different from themselves. The point of RPGs (real ones, the ones with C&C) is that they are able to do that, explore the possibilities, see how each approach stands up to the challenges of the game world.

I'm not trying to convince you that this way is the the best way for you. I'm just saying that doing it this way doesn't detract from a game being a RPG because the thing that defines a RPG is meaningful choices & consequences, and as long as it has that, it is still a RPG. Everything else is just gravy.

 

[Mastermind]

Re: MCA's World of Choices & Consequenses

He's not talking about minigames you fag.

I didn't say anything about minigames you dumbfuck.

What he's talking about is still within the confines of RPG/setting/gameworld mechanics,

So are minigames.

triggers depending on what rout you take and how you apply what you learnt.

Precisely. YOU, not your character.

Since when was being analytical regarded the same as being able to move your mouse real fast?

Who said anything about moving your mouse real fast? It's still player skill involved because it is the player analysing and making deductions regarding paths he could take rather than the character (who could be as much of a dumbfuck as you are for all we know). That's player skill. That it's a different player skill from combat reflexes is completely irrelevant. I argue that it is impossible to have an RPGAME without player skill, and player skill having a role to play does not diminish its status as an RPG.

 

[deus101]

Jesus fucking christ! You're either complete retard or a fantastic troll.

"If you don't want to get your reflexes, or your response under pressure tested in a RPG, that's fine. That's why a true RPG should have multiple ways of solving any given problem. "

I'm sorry, I can't remember there was a option for someone to hold a gun to my head the last time i played a Tremere.

"So what you're saying is: if you use your analytical skills, that doesn't really count as using player skill because you would already be using your analytical skills to play the game in the first place. But that's a bit of a circular argument: you use your analytical skills to play the game because you need your analytical skills to play the game so why wouldn't you use your analytical skills to play yet another element of the game? "

OH GOD!

Let me show you some purty pictures.

Now, im sure whack-a-chess could be amusing, but its completely different skill aspects.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMEPLAY


Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

"SIMULATION HERPA DERP!111"

You are giving me a stroke!

But im decided that you are indeed a fantastic troll, Ive made the distinction between pop-a-mole/starcraft fag skills and step by step descisions based on setting and envirement skills.

Yet you continue go on to say Im opposed to player skills in entirety, and obviusly that leaves out TB combat.





As for C&C...I've heard lots of retarded deffinition of C&C....but your take the cake.

C&C is NOT! Being able to circumvent challenges by changing gameplay.


Christ on a throne!

 

[Mastermind]

No, he's not right. It's still the character skill that matters

I never said it does not and your claim that "he's not right" when you can't even comprehend the claim fails spectacularly. I am not saying the character skill does not matter, I am saying that player skill is involved in the process. Character skill influences the toys you have to play with and player skill influences how you use your toys. This applies both to twitch based actions and problem solving based actions. You are arbitrarily claiming that the latter maintains a pure rpg while the former dilutes it. It's bullshit based on your personal preference regarding game mechanics. If you prefer turn based tactical/rpg hybrids like Fallout fine, but don't fucking tell me a game like morrowind isn't an rpg because of your retarded TB fetish.

 

[Mastermind]

Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

Except there is nothing about RPGs that require them to be analytical games.

 

[Mastermind]

I was just commenting the combat, that is what the player skill comment was mostly about, no?

Yes... if combat has no action element, because "action" by "definition" turns off rpg'ness and turn on “real life/not virtual” own player skills. Combat, like gaming, maybe be playing or be role-playing.

Yes... if combat has no tactical element, because "tactical" by "definition" turns off rpg'ness and turn on "real life/not virtual" own player skills. Combat, like gaming, maybe be playing or be role-playing.

 

[Davaris]

Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

Except there is nothing about RPGs that require them to be analytical games.

If you are talking about streamlined RPGs, with a quest compass and no C&C, you are correct.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

This applies both to twitch based actions and problem solving based actions. You are arbitrarily claiming that the latter maintains a pure rpg while the former dilutes it. It's bullshit based on your personal preference regarding game mechanics. If you prefer turn based tactical/rpg hybrids like Fallout fine, but don't fucking tell me a game like morrowind isn't an rpg because of your retarded TB fetish.

LARPer filth . Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[CorpseZeb]

Yes... if combat has no tactical element, because "tactical" by "definition" turns off rpg'ness and turn on "real life/not virtual" own player skills. Combat, like gaming, maybe be playing or be role-playing.

... by “skill” I meant, up-up there, mouseness and reflectness not chessness-depth valours of player mind, mind you...

 

[IronicNeurotic]

A lot of interesting words from a developer of shooters and hack and slays. Reminds me of the last eight or so years worth of words.

The last project MCA really created was KOTOR 2. He came in late during AP and he had no Lead Role in the FNV Base game.

So whats exactly your point?

 

[Mastermind]

Yes... if combat has no tactical element, because "tactical" by "definition" turns off rpg'ness and turn on "real life/not virtual" own player skills. Combat, like gaming, maybe be playing or be role-playing.

... by “skill” I meant, up-up there, mouseness and reflectness not chessness-depth valours of player mind, mind you...

Yes, I know codexfags aribtarily differentiate between different types of player skills and proclaim one somehow ruins role-playing because it's not the character's skill but the other doesn't ruin role playing even though it's also not the character's skill.

 

[Mastermind]

This applies both to twitch based actions and problem solving based actions. You are arbitrarily claiming that the latter maintains a pure rpg while the former dilutes it. It's bullshit based on your personal preference regarding game mechanics. If you prefer turn based tactical/rpg hybrids like Fallout fine, but don't fucking tell me a game like morrowind isn't an rpg because of your retarded TB fetish.

LARPer filth . Welcome to my ignore list.

I thought I was already on your ignore list. Oh well, I can't keep track of every butthurt faggot loser crying themselves to sleep because I crushed their pseudo-intellectual dogma.

 

[Mastermind]

Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

Except there is nothing about RPGs that require them to be analytical games.

If you are talking about streamlined RPGs, with a quest compass and no C&C, you are correct.

I don't remember fallout having a quest compass.

 

[Davaris]

Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

Except there is nothing about RPGs that require them to be analytical games.

If you are talking about streamlined RPGs, with a quest compass and no C&C, you are correct.

I don't remember fallout having a quest compass.

So C&C is not analytical? TB combat is not analytical?

If I make this choice in combat or in a quest, what will be the likely consequence? Do I have to think about it?

an·a·lyt·i·cal/ˌanlˈitikəl/
Adjective: Relating to or using analysis or logical reasoning.

 

[Mastermind]

Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

Except there is nothing about RPGs that require them to be analytical games.

If you are talking about streamlined RPGs, with a quest compass and no C&C, you are correct.

I don't remember fallout having a quest compass.

And turn based combat is not analytical.

Not in Fallout.

 

[Davaris]

Yes ITS player SKILLS! But having reflex skills define the success in what is suppose to be an analytical game is retarded.

Except there is nothing about RPGs that require them to be analytical games.

If you are talking about streamlined RPGs, with a quest compass and no C&C, you are correct.

I don't remember fallout having a quest compass.

And turn based combat is not analytical.

Not in Fallout.

In your opinion.

 

[Davaris]

You can pull a character through a story by having events unfold around them, or you can make it clear that events are happening because of what the player did - and *specifically* what the player did. Part of the fun of a world and a story is how your presence is causing changes in it, seeing those changes play out, and being made aware exactly how you caused those changes. Being an agent of change, the spark lighting the fuse, or the butterfly wings that spark the hurricane on the other side of the world is pretty gratifying. It's much different than the player being passively subjected to a changing story they are having no effect on - or if it's obvious the events that are changing have nothing to do with their actions.

This part I disagree with. Worlds that do nothing until the player does something, seem dead to me. There has to be a middle path. I want the world to react and come looking for me, whether I'm ready or not.

 

[Johannes]

Yes... if combat has no tactical element, because "tactical" by "definition" turns off rpg'ness and turn on "real life/not virtual" own player skills. Combat, like gaming, maybe be playing or be role-playing.

... by “skill” I meant, up-up there, mouseness and reflectness not chessness-depth valours of player mind, mind you...

Ok, but don't be surprised if someone thinks that by skill you meant skill.

You can pull a character through a story by having events unfold around them, or you can make it clear that events are happening because of what the player did - and *specifically* what the player did. Part of the fun of a world and a story is how your presence is causing changes in it, seeing those changes play out, and being made aware exactly how you caused those changes. Being an agent of change, the spark lighting the fuse, or the butterfly wings that spark the hurricane on the other side of the world is pretty gratifying. It's much different than the player being passively subjected to a changing story they are having no effect on - or if it's obvious the events that are changing have nothing to do with their actions.

This part I disagree with. Worlds that do nothing until the player does something, seem dead to me. There has to be a middle path. I want the world to react and come looking for me, whether I'm ready or not.

Yeah, the world should also have its own thing going as time passes. Reacting to the players inactivity, in a way.

 

[Excidium]

Always nice to read an interview with a good RPG designer.

Oh and the obligatory

 

[GarfunkeL]

People, stop quoting Mastermind in your replies to him, makes the ignore a useless feature, plz thnx.

You contradicted your statement from the first paragraph that says that character skill rules supreme: you move from simple checks based on character skill to complex mechanics based a little, if at all, on character skill but much more on player skill.

While it may seem so, not really. It's merely fleshing out the system around that skill check. Yes, it takes player-"skill" but I'd prefer to keep that definition to strictly mean reaction speed and eye-hand coordination, the usual way player skill is defined in sports and arcade/action games. Yes, chess and war/strategy/RPG-games require skills too but of more cerebral nature.

If I again make an analogy to combat, the skill-check in speech would be similar to the to-hit roll. But anyone who tries to claim that "to-hit roll is all that there is to combat" is a moron, yes? There's positioning, equipment, circumstances, etc depending on game mechanics and so. Do we argue that combat in RPGs should not have such things which obviously require player skill in utilizing them optimally? No. Thus, MCAs ideas of improving the "diplomat path" so that it's not just a single skill-check in conversation is commendable. Maybe I missed something but I didn't read him arguing that skill-checks should be dismissed altogether - the extra stuff you can find in his examples would be equivalent of getting bonuses to your "to-hit roll" in combat.

No, that doesn't mean that they're worthless.

I'd say it does.

Play Alpha Protocol on Recruit without

Okay. Haven't played AP so I wouldn't know. Great that you found a single example. Now, how did minigames work in Oblivion, F3, ME1 and ME2? Hmmh? Useless time-sinks or short-cuts for the player to circumvent character skill. In an RPG, the player should rely on his character(s) skill(s).

It's the same thing as in real life: some people are naturally good at some things and they work their asses off trying to get good at others and everybody has different levels of innate skills

But it's not real life and what you describe is called "character generation" in RPGs. If you want your character to be a good lock-picker, you make your choices in the character generation. My beef with lockpicking-minigames is that allows the player to use skillpoints in other skills since he can rely on his mouse-wheedling to swing him by any locked doors.

The best method to approach this is to provide multiple feasible options to any given task.

Of course. Unfortunately, none of the minigames in any of the recent (A)RPGs I've played have done so. You either hack the minigame or you don't. Gone are the days when Vic repaired something that the Chosen One couldn't or Imoen disarmed traps in the Nashkel mine.

You say that you don't want a character that is you. That's a personal preference. Some roleplay characters completely different from themselves, others roleplay characters as close to themselves as possible, yet others play it 9 times and go the whole spectrum: from very close to very different from themselves. The point of RPGs (real ones, the ones with C&C) is that they are able to do that, explore the possibilities, see how each approach stands up to the challenges of the game world.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I meant that in an RPG, I'm playing a character, not participating directly like someone playing Quake or... Wii Tennis. It doesn't matter if my character is patterned after myself or not. When you begin with an RPG but then start insisting that purely player-skill (hand-eye coordination/reflexes) should be part of the gameplay, you are sliding into the dreaded ARPG territory. And that's fine - just don't try to sell it as an "pure" RPG.

thing that defines a RPG is meaningful choices & consequences, and as long as it has that, it is still a RPG. Everything else is just gravy.

Fuck off storyfag, it's not. C&C can be in any sort of game - adventure and strategy being two good examples. RPGs are first and foremost about the character(s) that the player uses, end of story. C&C sure is a nice addition but it's not the primary requirement. Or are you saying that all those old RPGs that focused on dungeon-crawling are not RPGs at all?

If you don't want to get your reflexes, or your response under pressure tested in a RPG, that's fine. That's why a true RPG should have multiple ways of solving any given problem. If you can't or don't want to take the twitchy or stressful approach, you can do that, if you do, you can do that too. But I see no problem having such avenues to success available to the player. C&C baby!

I know this part wasn't directed to me but I'll answer to it as well because it's important.

1. If I want twitchy gameplay and test my reflexes, I'll play Quake or Painkiller or some missile-hell shoot'em'up from Japan.
2. If I want tactical combat and C&C and dialogue and shit, I'll play a proper RPG.
3. There is no need to try to force an unholy alliance between the two, even if almost everyone seems to be hellbent on doing exactly that but almost all the examples are bad - M&B has excellent combat but is a fucking awful RPG. Maybe Gothic got it right but I haven't played them so I wouldn't know.
4. I hate genre-mixing anyway since the results are usually shit and this isn't really relevant to the discussion anymore but the point is that ARPGs can go hide out in the backyard playing with the dogs in the mudpit where they belong while we enjoy "pure" RPGs in the livingroom with Blackadder and Mondblut, sipping some fine tea and perhaps a puff of pipe.

 

[sea]

Great comments here, I really enjoyed the read.

One thing about it that I think needs expanding upon:

This is probably putting me out of a job, but it's what I believe and what I've noticed from both computer game GM'ing and pen-and-paper gamemastering: Special casing reactivity I've found is generally a waste of time compared to giving the player a series of game mechanics and encounters and see what happens. This is an example I've used before, but as a narrative designer, I can't compete a player's story about how their dwarf fighter with 3 hit points exploited a crack in the canyon terrain and the limited range of motion of orcish axes to lure 20 orcs to their death one by one. Simple, but that's a legend being made right there. Once you add reputation systems, faction systems, and more, and the range of player-made stories increases without narrative designers having to do much work at all.

What Avellone is advocating here is a wide variety of options in solving problems, giving players a freeform toolset to affect the world. I think this is separate from "consequence", in the sense that you still need to have the game acknowledge what the player does properly. You see this succeed or fail in certain games, where characters might not realise X is dead, or perhaps won't notice the player took the sneaky route rather than the violent one. It's not enough to just give choices, and different outcomes, but to have a world actually relay that it has taken note of not just the player's success, but his or her means. There are very few RPGs on I've seen that do this effectively, even great ones like Fallout which don't differentiate if you, say, save Tandi by sneaking her out in the dead of night rather than blow the Khans' brains out. Giving unique dialogue, rewards, and having different characters respond to the player differently based on this is something RPGs need to strive for (and what I think Alpha Protocol attempted, but fell short). He does sort of touch upon it by referencing factions and alignment and whatnot, but I've always felt these are kind of half-solutions. I'd rather have a game acknowledge that I'm a Bad Mother Fucker through a dialogue response than a +5 Evil increase.