Player Expression in RPGs

[oscar]

Solasta had a promising concept of this (characters picking multiple personality traits, or even spending all their points on a single personality trait if it's hyper-dominant) but the plot and dialogue were too banal for it to really even matter.

 

[Quillon]

Solasta had a promising concept of this (characters picking multiple personality traits, or even spending all their points on a single personality trait if it's hyper-dominant) but the plot and dialogue were too banal for it to really even matter.

Yeah I made my party using all the traits with minimal overlap but I didn't really notice if it mattered at all.

ed: PoE's dispositions are also similar in the actual game, there are 10 dispositions and few and far between reactivity for them, often NPCs just knowing about the player when they shouldn't have etc. Ultimately it gets a bit mushy in the actual gameplay that you don't really see the impact of any of your 10 dispositions enough.

Which is why I'm more leaning to malkavian approach: Its more of a crude approach; doesn't have much intricacies, but its probably more work: rewriting everything player says for each personality type and making NPCs react differently to each. Then you just get the feedback every second that you are playing a different character and ultimately its about the experience, what you feel matters more than the complexity of the design; you might think you thought of everything with 10 dispositions in PoE's case and 12 personality flags in Solasta but all that could/probably had just mushed into each other with no one really noticing for what any particular reactivity happened/any particular line said or just they didn't add enough reactivity for them.

 

[Harthwain]

I don't like there being all of the options when my character was acting in a certain way most of the game. There could be dialogue progression mechanic kinda like Mass Effect's paragon/renegade, when you act in certain way for some time the opposite choices should start to disappear gradually and more/heavier options start to unlock for the way you been acting... but I'm not sure about this since anyone can act/say stuff unpredictably at anytime so :/

I disagree with this approach. Strongly.

The main fault of the Mass Effect's system was pigeonholing players into one of two categories: Paragon and Renegade. It is not really good system for roleplaying. I'd rather have Alpha Protocol's system instead, where people could change their approach to you based on your behaviour (both conversations and actions). Besides that, I would add something from the character creation: just like your physical stats determine your interactions with the world, your psychical stats should determine your interactions with the people. The big question is: should you be able to attempt everything and just roll for it, or should certain options only be possible when your character realizes they are there? Or go further and mix the two?

That said, I am waiting for an RPG that is less concerned about player expression and more about player choice. You can always shape NPCs' attitude towards the player via linking what they know about the player's past actions (towards them or others). In some respect I think we lack an RPG that is an information-exchange simulation game. Ruinarch is a good example here: it's possible for you to spread out information with malicious intent, because characters can learn about events and act on that knowledge. The identical mechanism could be applied here, especially if you treat your RPG as a simulation, where some people will be more mobile than others and act as "spreaders". Imagine the possibilities!

 

[Quillon]

The main fault of the Mass Effect's system was pigeonholing players into one of two categories: Paragon and Renegade. It is not really good system for roleplaying.

I gave ME example for the mechanic of Par/Ren, it was their choice to just make it Par/Ren, black & white. You could add more opposing types.

Besides that, I would add something from the character creation: just like your physical stats determine your interactions with the world, your psychical stats should determine your interactions with the people.

Physical stats/appearance etc should have an effect on people; f.i. strength can be used to lift things but also to intimidate people. In fact mental stats is not really needed at all imo, you can't check player's own RL physical stats but you can check their mental stats, f.i. put an intelligent option there among others but don't tag it nor put a INT skill check on it. If player is intelligent enough and RPing an intelligent character he'll pick that one Its a design choice tho.

In some respect I think we lack an RPG that is an information-exchange simulation game. Ruinarch is a good example here: it's possible for you to spread out information with malicious intent, because characters can learn about events and act on that knowledge. The identical mechanism could be applied here, especially if you treat your RPG as a simulation, where some people will be more mobile than others and act as "spreaders". Imagine the possibilities!

Sounds like a procedural system rather than handcrafted narratives tho.

 

[Harthwain]

Physical stats/appearance etc should have an effect on people; f.i. strength can be used to lift things but also to intimidate people. In fact mental stats is not really needed at all imo, you can't check player's own RL physical stats but you can check their mental stats, f.i. put an intelligent option there among others but don't tag it nor put a INT skill check on it. If player is intelligent enough and RPing an intelligent character he'll pick that one Its a design choice tho.

I am not convinced about mental stats not being needed (I'd say they have a place as much as physical stats. After all, a character who can't read shouldn't be able to read, even if the player can), but I agree that mental stats could have... subtler effect on the player character, without making it too apparent to the player himself. Similarly to how the sanity can affect the player in horror games. It's my belief that we should strive to blurry the line between the player character and the player, so it matters what kind of character the player is playing with. It could also help in making each character a unique experience enough to warrant multiple playthroughs.

Sounds like a procedural system rather than handcrafted narratives tho.

I am a big proponent of emergent gameplay.

 

[Comrade Goby]

Just make the protagonist voiceless and everyone else voiced, also pls write the full line so I know what actually is being said and not some vague guess

 

[Cpt. Dallas]

Many good ideas here, esp the take on AP. The character build affected player expression fairly well in NV and Disco as well.
Then there is the shitshow of pointless conversation choices of Fallout 4: Yes, Maybe Later, Sarcasm.