Handlers: Gear & Roleplaying

[Darth Sithari]

Upon reviewing the walkthrough video, I had a concern that I hope could be dispelled.

 

Before missions we choose handlers. These handlers seem to be divided into differing playstyles. For example, in Moscow there is Albatross (stealth oriented) and SIE (combat oriented). My concern is that players will be inclined to pick a particular handler in each hub over and over depending on the manner in which they've allocated their skills. My hope is that the handlers will differ in the manner in which they want the missions to be accomplished to such a degree that players will be forced to make a choice with whom they want to side based on more than just what equipment they want. If gear and playstyle are allowed to dominant the choices we make, then the story risks turning very linear. However, if we need to be constantly evaluating the goals and consequences of our actions and alliances, the story can become much richer and intriguing.

 

So, handlers: is it all about gear, or will we need to make roleplaying decisions as well?

[Oner]

Upon reviewing the walkthrough video, I had a concern that I hope could be dispelled.

 

Before missions we choose handlers. These handlers seem to be divided into differing playstyles. For example, in Moscow there is Albatross (stealth oriented) and SIE (combat oriented). My concern is that players will be inclined to pick a particular handler in each hub over and over depending on the manner in which they've allocated their skills. My hope is that the handlers will differ in the manner in which they want the missions to be accomplished to such a degree that players will be forced to make a choice with whom they want to side based on more than just what equipment they want. If gear and playstyle are allowed to dominant the choices we make, then the story risks turning very linear. However, if we need to be constantly evaluating the goals and consequences of our actions and alliances, the story can become much richer and intriguing.

 

So, handlers: is it all about gear, or will we need to make roleplaying decisions as well?

Let me ask you two questions: Why do you care why and how I choose my handlers, and why do you think I won't stick with a handler only because I like him/her?

[Pop]

I think there's validity to the concern that these handlers will be just a reskin of tired RPG conventions, where Albatross = thieves' guild and Sie = fighter's guild. What if I'm a stealthy character but I'd like to align myself with someone other than Albatross in that case? Arguably, I'd be penalized for attempting to do so, and restricts choice.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Pop

[Oner]

And vice versa, If I want to stick with SIE as a combat char, and she sends me into a sneaky mission, what then? Bonus points if the opposing mission makes me loose reputation with her.

[Zoma]

edit: oops. Wrong thread. Improvised post.

 

I don't think a player would necessarily pick a handler based on his character's build. I'm fairly certain that for my first run, I'll pick a character which I feel that he or she KICKS SO MUCH ASS IN BADASS MODE THAT I WANT TO BE PART OF IT TOO.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Zoma

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I agree that it's a bit gamey having the stealth handlers and the combat handlers, but hopefully there will be other reasons to choose one or the other as well (e.g. your character's ethical leanings).

[Oner]

I agree that it's a bit gamey having the stealth handlers and the combat handlers, but hopefully there will be other reasons to choose one or the other as well (e.g. your character's ethical leanings).

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but isn't that a given?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I don't know, is it? Any implementation of ethics/morality in a game is only as deep as the designers choose to make it.

[Oner]

Well, since AP's morality is grey and grey, I guess there are some to choose from, and in the end you'll decide who you agree with anyway.

[Enoch]

Well, it's probably unavoidable that there be some synergies between playstyles and faction alliances. But, if Avellone's Framework keynote is to be believed (the AP stuff is towards the end), there are benefits to getting negative influence as well as positive influence with the NPCs & factions.

 

As I understand it, while choosing a particular handler has influence on the hows of the mission (access, information, which characters are hostile and which aren't), the player is still going to have the control over the whys (what the objective is, what the player does with it, and whether their handler is happy or unhappy with the results). I could easily see a scenario where the player chooses a stealth-leaning handler, takes advantage of his support and information, and then wholly disregards the handler's wishes with regard to the objective (e.g., executing the target instead of just hacking his PC and downloading his files). End result: you've taken the stealthy approach and used the stealthy handler, but you have further moral/ideological/story-based goal antithetical to said handler, probably earning massive negative influence with him (and most likely earning some positive influence with a rival faction). Of course, this kind of behavior might make it tougher to use that stealthy handler on future missions, but to a certain degree, we're going to have to trust Obsidz to make the benefits of high/low influence with particular factions reasonably balanced across different playstyles.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Enoch

[Pop]

And vice versa, If I want to stick with SIE as a combat char, and she sends me into a sneaky mission, what then? Bonus points if the opposing mission makes me loose reputation with her.

Tough ****. AP is supposed to reward you for every decision you make, but that doesn't mean you're going to get all the results you want regardless of the way you play. A mission handler who prefers random senseless carnage every single mission is rather boring. If you want to gain influence with SIE then FFS do what the **** she says, not what you want her to want from you. If you're upset that all of a sudden she doesn't want you to Hulk out on everything then you've obviously already bought into the idea that SIE is the Fighter's Guild of the AP world and that her faction only makes sense when it expects a singular thing from you. Variety provides challenge. Roll with it.

 

That having been said I would not be particularly surprised if SIE was in fact psychotically obsessed with gore 100% of the time.

[Darth Sithari]

As I understand it, while choosing a particular handler has influence on the hows of the mission (access, information, which characters are hostile and which aren't), the player is still going to have the control over the whys (what the objective is, what the player does with it, and whether their handler is happy or unhappy with the results). I could easily see a scenario where the player chooses a stealth-leaning handler, takes advantage of his support and information, and then wholly disregards the handler's wishes with regard to the objective (e.g., executing the target instead of just hacking his PC and downloading his files). End result: you've taken the stealthy approach and used the stealthy handler, but you have further moral/ideological/story-based goal antithetical to said handler, probably earning massive negative influence with him (and most likely earning some positive influence with a rival faction).

 

Most likely true. However, my hope is that there will be some points in the game where the goals of the handlers differ to the point that the player will be tempted to make hard choices between the two (or more) based on things besides level layout, gear, playstyle, etc. Otherwise, a player is somewhat inherently set on a particular path depending on their skill selection.

[Oner]

And vice versa, If I want to stick with SIE as a combat char, and she sends me into a sneaky mission, what then? Bonus points if the opposing mission makes me loose reputation with her.

Tough ****. AP is supposed to reward you for every decision you make, but that doesn't mean you're going to get all the results you want regardless of the way you play. A mission handler who prefers random senseless carnage every single mission is rather boring. If you want to gain influence with SIE then FFS do what the **** she says, not what you want her to want from you. If you're upset that all of a sudden she doesn't want you to Hulk out on everything then you've obviously already bought into the idea that SIE is the Fighter's Guild of the AP world and that her faction only makes sense when it expects a singular thing from you. Variety provides challenge. Roll with it.

 

That having been said I would not be particularly surprised if SIE was in fact psychotically obsessed with gore 100% of the time.

Wow, I point out a little thing and pop goes *snap*. I know psycho rage clouds judgement, but just maybe you should actually comprehend what I'm writing: I don't care either way how they do it, and I'm going to choose whoever I like.

 

Oh and someone who says

Arguably, I'd be penalized for attempting to do so, and restricts choice.

is in no position to tell me "roll with it". Do you even understand what you are writing?

[Pop]

I'm just bemused by the notion that variety in handler expectations throughout the game could be seen as problematic. You presented a scenario where you, the player, is preferring heavy combat over other styles of play and you're given a stealth mission, and you ask "what then?", which is a leading question, as the answer is obvious - you reap whatever consequences there happen to be for ignoring the strictures imposed upon you for the mission. Why would you ask that if you were satisfied with the answer? So you in effect ask me to justify your experiencing unsatisfactory consequences for your play style, even when negative consequences in this case are the only consequences that make sense.

 

The OP was asking if it was sensible to worry that it would only be possible to establish functional relationships with factions by following an implicit demand for a playstyle that is consistently applied throughout the game. I figured that it was, and that's problematic because it does create an incentive to align with the faction that appreciates your style. Even with advantages doled out to mavericks who disobey handlers, gamers will be to factions as schoolchildren are to seats - nine times out of ten, kids will pick a seat on the first day of class and stick with it throughout even if they haven't been explicitly told to pick a seat and own it. Adding variety to handler demands makes it far less likely that a player will be inclined to align with a group solely because of his "class", because he won't know if factions will consistently fit his play style and he might not establish a tight relationship early on in the game. It allows him to be critical instead of just going through the motions.

[lasthearth]

I don't understand this constant complaint by people in RPG threads that starts with the "I shouldn't be penalized for" following by whatever choices that are presented in the game.

 

What's wrong with being penalized? It's called decisions. Some decisions you make in life will cost you things. What you're really saying is that you don't want any negative consequences for any choices you make. Which basically means that the choices you made in the end makes no difference.

 

If you're a stealth expert, but the person who's the stealth handler doesn't share you ethical objectives, then you have to make a choice between the person who can help you finish the mission the easy, or making it harder on your self by sticking to your ideals. To me that seems that like a perfect role playing decision.

[Oner]

As I said, I don't care either way, what annoys me are these "change it, "cause it irks me that other players who I don't know may meta-game that singleplayer game" ideas.

[alanschu]

I think it's bad because it'll make the characters too boring personally.

[LatwPIAT]

I don't know, is it? Any implementation of ethics/morality in a game is only as deep as the designers choose to make it.

Though depending on the game, ethics are often as deep as gameplay mechanics allow, regardless of how deep the designers built it. There's quite the difference between the Technical Pacifist and the Pacifist. If I'm going to sink a superfreighter, it won't affect anything if I leave unconscious bodies inside, and no-one will be affected, but I've heard of people who took the extra steps of dragging every single unconscious body onto the docks just so that they could justify their own pacifism.

 

Another Deus Ex example, just to illustrate. The game essentially forces you to kill a certain character at one point. You cannot knock the unconscious. However, through some clever environmental manipulation, it is possible to bypass the fight. The game won't acknowledge this, if I remember correctly, but I doubt that anyone chose to leave the exploit used. At another point NPCs react negatively and/or positively towards a player based on whether a certain NPC acted, rather than the player actually acted. If you go pacifistic, but accidentally trigger the event, well, JC will actually claim he killed a whole lot of people, as will other character, and they will negatively reward the player. I still don't think I'm anything less of a pacifist, so in this case my moral interpretation of the game goes "deeper" than the game itself.

 

Of course, some games have terribly broken morality, such as Mirror's Edge, which rewards pacifism, yet has a cutscene where the main character kills some mooks. Additionally, games that rely heavily on scripted events and a brute-forced narrative will usually have a more limited morality system than games where the player is left to his own devices, so there certainly is some relation.

[blackace57]

I think when it comes to decision-making and its concequences and rewards, and also influence, gamers will never truely be happy. I think you have to either play the game the way it was made or just don't get it. It is that simple. It is not that big of a deal. I think it is even better when you have to make tough desicions in games with concequences and rewards. A good example is Mass Effect,

where you have to decide between saving ashley or Kaiden.

I reloaded questioning my decision several times, but in the end, tough decisions can make a game great. So, in AP, I guess we need to make a decision whether are ethics and morals or playing style are more important to us and make a choice that may sacrifice one for the other. Besides, you could always do another playthrough where you make different choices.

[mingoran]

Ah role-playing, how do you role-play in a game that is mission and story driven? Obviously role-playing is not letting the player do everything he wants or providing an infinite amount of choices and consequences. There must be a balance somewhere. For me role-playing AP is how you play stealth, mixed and combat chars and the consequences of character dialogs (without changing the story in a radical way). Choosing a path during dialog shouldn't just give a reaction and stop there. There as to be some advantage or side effect you can play later in the game. Also skills have to mater. There must be an upper limit for the player to finish quests using either stealth, combat or a mixed approach but every mission should be doable with one of these characters as along as he has enough skill. If the player won't be able to play through the entire game as a stealth character that uses non-lethal force in some occasions if there are bosses or missions that force him to play out of character, in this case i think the story and mission design should adapt itself to the gameplay.

Edited July 5, 2009 by mingoran