Player - the only competent force in the Universe

[Celsius]

Hey,

I popped in just to do two things - say thank you for doing a game I've been waiting for a long time and to make a request.

 

In many games - not only RPGs - the player is capable of doing incredible feats, solving problems no one else can and is basically the driving force behind every major event in the game's world. For me it's frustrating when a kid from a backwater village comes around defeating enemies a garrison of battle-hardened soldiers can't, after having a training consisting of killing a couple of wolves along the way (Neverwinter Nights 2 anyone?). Then proceeds to kill all the major power players in the area and saves the world in the end. Or a party of 6 random warriors clearing out a fortress of goblins, orcs, trolls etc., while a whole army could barely do that.

 

The problem is not the strength of the PC or the world saving theme, but the fact that usually it looks like the world is simply not able to fend for itself. City guards? Useless. Army? Good for slowing down the main bulk of the enemy's force, so you can move in for the kill, but otherwise never actually does anything. The king/queen/prince/whatnot? Sometimes is smart enough to employ your services, but aside from that it's usually a miracle they haven't been assassinated and replaced yet.

 

What I'd like to see is people being competent enough to justify the existance of their societies. If a party of 4 random people can solve a city's/nation's all major problems, why does it need the law enforcement force? To stand around trying to do stuff until you come along and do it for them?

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't want a player to be powerless, but on the other hand I don't want to have the constant feeling of being surrounded by weaklings and morons. Try to balance things out - make it interesting but not over the top. I don't need people telling me "Oh my god you are so powerful, not an army could achieve what you have!".

[Lostbrain]

Good point. In many western cRPG, I have always the sensation that our character or our team is the only force who can resolve problems in the game's world (like in BG 2, even it's my favorite cRPG). It would be interesting (for example) to meet other adventurers companies trying to resolves our quests (for example as narrative's tip to by-pass the problem).

[Nonek]

Well in NWN2 there was a rather good explanation for your being tied in to the main plot with the shard embedded in your heart, that and it's strongly hinted that Daeghun was the original hero of NWN, thus you were trained quite thoroughly in the tough harbourman way. That said I agree that many rpg's do fall into this rut of blatantly pandering to the players power fantasies, however Obsidian don't go overboard and usually present you as being no more than the right person present at the right time. It's the more juvenile games such as Biowares that make this cliche so uncomfortable and blatant, and thus so irksome when you think about it.

 

That said they can be very fun.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I really think Obsidian should learn from the Witcher 2 in this area. That game did an amazing job of making the PC feel like an important, focal character, without having the whole world revolve around him. The key thing here is to not let the world rest. While the PC is hunting that dragon, what is the Free Principate up to? When the PC assasinates his patron's noble rival, what is that rival's house doing in response. The PC can't be the only one who is taking the initiative.

[anek]

So true.

 

And it's not just fights, also the little things.

 

For example remember how in Icewind Dale II, in practically every city/village you reach you are sent to talk to the ghost of some deceased person and do some fedex quest for them so they can rest in peace... I always thought, wtf? I'm an adventurer, not a traveling spiritual counselor! Can the villagers not take care of their own friggin' dead?

 

In fact, that goes for fedex quests in general. Its pretty silly that all progress in a village/town would come to a halt, because NPC 1 needs to get an item from NPC 2 three houses away, and of course no-one in town can play the deliveryboy role except for the stranger and his adventuring company who just arrived in town.

Edited September 22, 2012 by anek

[Gyges]

Yup, i'm still surprised they didnt just throw me against the amassed darkspawn horde in Dragon Age: Awakening, my useless team fell in a matter of minutes against the ghost dragon while i had to witter it away over the next 10 minutes. Or better, in skyrim i was a damned demi-god at level 60. Seeing a dragon was like a fly buzzing around you irl, their presence alone is an irritation but once they sit down on the ground they get smashed.

[Lysen]

"You are a power to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, so is everyone else". Probably, PS:T was the only game that did it right.

[Krios]

To be fair to the devs of many such games, the player is the hero. It is expected he or she can do heroic things. That is not to say the hero has superhuman strength or can fight an army solo. So maybe by Level 60 the hero can slay a dragon by himself but can he do that without any injuries? Probably not unless he was using godlike powers (aka god mode). As for performing menial tasks, I am okay with those. Those same tasks help your character to grow. They crafted your reputation, it is why your hero is loved by the people at the end of the adventure.

[Zephyr Falcon]

I agree the trope has been in every cRPG - at least to some extent. The TES games Oblivion and Skyrim may be the worst of them, since you are the only instigator for change in all the universe.

The best ways to reduce that problem would be:

1.) Start small, stay small - no super quick power gain. No starting as an uber-hero. No scaled down big monsters for sake of giving us a big monster. Slowly fight your way up the food chain. That made BG a great series of games.

 

2.) Opportunities for defeats. Let me try to attack that castle/dragon/etc. and fail miserably. That motivates us to comeback after many adventures to try again. But don't do the badass paradox (forcing a defat on the player in a cutscene)

 

3.) Competent NPC decisions. No stupid Bond villian deathtraps. No unlocked or unguarded backdoors. No exploding barrels.

[Auxilius]

Well, everything has been said. The player character should be under the possibility than anyone can kick his ass at any moment if he's going too far.

It also means any evil choice must be weighed. For example, I could kill this annoying archmage and take his loot, or sell his knowledge to the Sand Raiders or something, but that means the Prince who is employing will certainly be unhappy, and send trained (and brutal) killers after me.

Then, you can use the protection of your new allies or deal with it alone, depending of your cunning.

I know everyone should play the game like they want and "MWAHAHAHAHA EEEEEEVILLLLLLL" runs should still be a possibility but being evil with no consequences always rubbed me the wrong way.

Besides, calculating evil is much more awesome but no game, except for Planescape Torment and Mask of the Betrayer (Somehow, because being evil in MotB was being one hell of a ****) did that.

Actually, writing about this gives me a new idea: what about being evil AND popular? After all, if you slay the mad king for your own gain, people will still thank you. Even if you tax them like a socialist french president, they're afraid they'll be killed over some insane rambling.

[Celsius]

To be fair to the devs of many such games, the player is the hero. It is expected he or she can do heroic things. That is not to say the hero has superhuman strength or can fight an army solo. So maybe by Level 60 the hero can slay a dragon by himself but can he do that without any injuries? Probably not unless he was using godlike powers (aka god mode). As for performing menial tasks, I am okay with those. Those same tasks help your character to grow. They crafted your reputation, it is why your hero is loved by the people at the end of the adventure.

 

True, but it is not the matter of how competent the player is. I don't want to play someone who can't get things done. The problem is that the rest of the world's population is usually incapable of solving their own problems, even if they have the means to. That level 30 city guard will slaughter you for theft in the matter of seconds, but will not be able to kill the bandits in a camp just outside of town. The same bandits you will murder without much effor (up yours, Elder Scrolls).

 

In my opinion it'd be better if the player would arrive at a stalemate situation - where both sides of the conflict have nearly the same power and someone simply needs to tip the scales one way. The forementioned bandit situation - it should be made plain the bandit party would be obliterated if they'd get too close to city walls, but are dangerous in the wilds, since they know them very well and cannot be tracked. That's when you come in, settle the situation and are a hero. I'd like a good explanation for why someone else can't do the quest.

[KenThomas]

It's the more juvenile games such as Biowares that make this cliche so uncomfortable and blatant, and thus so irksome when you think about it.

 

That said they can be very fun.

 

I did find the scenarios in Mass Effect when they did a ground landing mission to be very silly sometimes. They should've taken a cue from some of the old Star Trek episodes. You have a ship that has way more firepower than anything you can put on the ground. Use it.

 

"we have to destroy [x] before [y] happens!" Okay, Normandy, fire the Thanix Cannon at [z] co-ordinates. Sweet, good job, lets land to try to get some intel and salvage.

[KenThomas]

In my opinion it'd be better if the player would arrive at a stalemate situation - where both sides of the conflict have nearly the same power and someone simply needs to tip the scales one way.

 

There was a town vs ncr base scenario like that in new vegas. I also liked that when you did the final battle between the two that you ran with a group of soldiers into the fight.

[TrashMan]

Hey,

I popped in just to do two things - say thank you for doing a game I've been waiting for a long time and to make a request.

 

In many games - not only RPGs - the player is capable of doing incredible feats, solving problems no one else can and is basically the driving force behind every major event in the game's world. For me it's frustrating when a kid from a backwater village comes around defeating enemies a garrison of battle-hardened soldiers can't, after having a training consisting of killing a couple of wolves along the way (Neverwinter Nights 2 anyone?). Then proceeds to kill all the major power players in the area and saves the world in the end. Or a party of 6 random warriors clearing out a fortress of goblins, orcs, trolls etc., while a whole army could barely do that.

 

The problem is not the strength of the PC or the world saving theme, but the fact that usually it looks like the world is simply not able to fend for itself. City guards? Useless. Army? Good for slowing down the main bulk of the enemy's force, so you can move in for the kill, but otherwise never actually does anything. The king/queen/prince/whatnot? Sometimes is smart enough to employ your services, but aside from that it's usually a miracle they haven't been assassinated and replaced yet.

 

What I'd like to see is people being competent enough to justify the existance of their societies. If a party of 4 random people can solve a city's/nation's all major problems, why does it need the law enforcement force? To stand around trying to do stuff until you come along and do it for them?

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't want a player to be powerless, but on the other hand I don't want to have the constant feeling of being surrounded by weaklings and morons. Try to balance things out - make it interesting but not over the top. I don't need people telling me "Oh my god you are so powerful, not an army could achieve what you have!".

 

 

Agreed.

I belive a lot of those problems cna simply be solves by toning hte scale down a bit...and normalizing enemies. Heck, normalizing level/item/power scaling would be a great step i ntaht direction, since "normal" opponents even in small number would always be a fair challenge trought the game - thus not requireing demigods to fight the overpowered PC and his party.

[TrashMan]

It's the more juvenile games such as Biowares that make this cliche so uncomfortable and blatant, and thus so irksome when you think about it.

Mot modern games nad MMO's suffer from big ego-boosts and pwoer creeps.

 

I wouldnt' cal lBioWare games juvenile...well, their last one are.

 

But the first Dragon age? It has probably one of the best setting I've ever seen. It feels so real because people act like you'd expect normal people would. Especially the mage dillema. I totally see people locking uip mages if they were real.

[licketysplit]

"You are a power to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, so is everyone else". Probably, PS:T was the only game that did it right.

 

Both Witcher games excelled at this. The PC is constantly being lied to, manipulated, and just plain denigrated at times. Other characters in the game show themselves to be more competent and intelligent than Geralt.

Edited September 22, 2012 by licketysplit

[NerdBoner]

this topic coincides with an idea i had earlier.

 

I'd really like to have a rival, someone as competent or even more competent than I am...

 

a Gary Oak to my Ash Ketchum, a Proto-man to my MegaMan, someone who shows up when i think i'm hot sh1t only to rub it in my face that he/she is so much better and advanced than me. (the rival is obviously not a quest stealer but his rep can rise even faster than yours and he may even make a few appearances during key quests of importance)

 

I mean, i obviously CRUSH this rival at the end through my own efforts but i think it would add an extra layer of PvE competition that isn't there when its just you doing everything and being hyper competent.

Edited September 22, 2012 by NerdBoner

[Cantousent]

I like that idea, Nerd, but I wouldn't even make it adversarial. I would actually make it so that he's doing his stuff and you're doing yours but you really want him to succeed, even if it takes some glory from you, because he's doing something important. You aren't the end all be all of the cause, but only a part of it. Maybe a big part, only a part.

 

Something else I'd like to see is the player being forced to make choices about how much to help someone else accomplish something. Either he could 'lend' one of his NPC companions to another strike force or some such or he could allocate resources such as funding, items, or influence. Maybe he lets other allied groups use his house as a headquarters for operations. Stuff like that.

[Tauron]

OP has a good point. Hope Obsidian will take notice of some very good advices community has to offer.

[Knott]

I agree that this subject can be quite overt in some games, but we must also consider that there are socioeconomic factors to consider.

 

As a city/society grows so does the number of problems scale. And if for instance corruption grows above its initial scale target then the balance in the society will begin to falter. When this happens, the city guard for instance will begin to be stretched thin. Now depending on the quality of managers and leaders, some areas in the society will work very well and a few will show signs of negligent decay. Or it may be improperly managed, with leaders trying to be good at everything, but ending up failing in most aspects.

 

We can only hope that societies in the game will properly reflect this, but it will mean we will be witness to incompetence, but it shouldn't be that everyone is incompetent.

[Nonek]

Letho of Gulet was a very good antagonist in the Witcher 2, he used more brain than brawn despite looking like cro magnon man on steroids, and he was broadly successful in his goal despite everything the protagonist did to oppose him. In a sense he was a mirror image of the hero, and presented an entirely opposite viewpoint on events and causes. Best of all in the final confrontation you could simply walk away from him, a refreshingly brave decision on the developers part.

 

He's only really matched by Kreia, in terms of an effective and personal counterpart to the player, or maybe the Nameless Ones previous incarnations.

[Infinitron]

I love meeting characters in games who know how to kick ass and get things done just as well as I, the player, do. Not just villains, but also (non-party member) allies or neutral characters.

 

I'm talking about the type of characters that you can imagine the game could conceivably have been about them instead of you. I think they call it "Hero of Another Story" on TVTropes.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Infinitron

[Dianjabla]

In the BG saga it was there, but it wasn't as blatant and unrealistic (for want of a better term). It was presented more as serendipity. You were obviously special somehow, but you didn't find out why until half way through the 1st game. You were a Bhaal spawn, but you were only one of many, many others and you weren't even the most powerful. The world still moved on around you doing its own thing, not acknowledging that everything revolved around you the player even when you got in and solved its problems for it. For most of the saga, there were still NPCs you'd meet that could school you. To all 3 of the main villains you were just a side show or a tool to be used on the road to their main goals. Sarevok might have succeeded (in starting a bloody pointless war at least) if he'd just left you alone until he'd done his thing. Irenicus was only using you & Imoen as a means to his own ends and didn't even consider you a threat until you showed up at the tree and kicked his ass. And not really even then. Amelissan used you to take out the 5 other Bhaal spwan she'd groomed to slay the weaker stragglers so she could become a god herself. The only one to tell you that you were special and were more than just the unlucky sod at the wrong place was the Solar, right at the finishing end of the saga. And sure, by the time you got to the end of that game you felt like you were a god, but by then you'd probably earned it.

 

ME2&3 by way of comparison were kind of irksome in some ways as the NPCs were always noting that there was something special about you, Shepard. You're such a great leader, you're the only one that can do it. Bah!

 

TLDR; If it's done right it's not a bad thing, done poorly, you're constantly reminded that you're Commander Shepard.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still had a blast playing the ME series. It just killed immersion.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Dianjabla

[Starglider]

I thought the 'rival adventuring party' thing in the Kickstarter was promising (one reason why I backed to that level). I hope they are implemented as more than just a random encounter; if they are given some build-up in terms of hearing about their exploits from townsfolk, encountering a destroyed caravan or group of monster corpses they've left behind, or them racing you to a plot goal, then that gives a good impression that your party is not the only competent force in the world. Yes you are lucky and have abilities way beyond the normal inhabitants of the world, but you are competing against rival adventurers of similar power then there is more sense of earning your rewards, vs being pre-destined to achieve them. Throne of Bhaal did this fairly well with the rival Bhaalspawn I thought.

[duskwind]

Something else I'd like to see is the player being forced to make choices about how much to help someone else accomplish something. Either he could 'lend' one of his NPC companions to another strike force or some such or he could allocate resources such as funding, items, or influence. Maybe he lets other allied groups use his house as a headquarters for operations. Stuff like that.

 

Or how about the player gets recruited as an effective NPC for a mission? A more powerful character takes you along as part of their quest, and they're the ones making the decisions and telling you what to do; you could voice your opinion, but wouldn't necessarily be listened to, and disobeying orders could turn the whole party against you. Wouldn't be any fun to make the whole game like that, but it might be an entertaining twist for a sidequest.