Delayed Consequences & Ripple Effects

[agewisdom]

Since choice and consequences is an important cornerstone of great cRPGs, I was wondering whether how many games actually incorporated quests that have delayed consequences that could ripple throughout the gameplay later.

 

I actually love cRPGs where the PC has to make some hard choices near the beginning of the game. A selfless and noble approach may not yield any immediate gratification. However, the PC may get a nice surprise in mid-game when his good deeds gets rewarded in the form of another quest, some cool loot or reputation increase.

 

Conversely, a selfish approach may yield an immediate benefit but might be detrimental in the long term. It may be in the form of someone seeking revenge, a reputation loss as the PC's misbehaviour comes to light. Something like that...

 

It would also prevent save scumming. One nice example that I remember was in the Witcher 1, where your initial decision in the Prologue to allow the elves to smuggle some *food* could have rippling consequences in only Chapter 2. It would be too late to change your decision then unless you're willing load a save game 8 hours earlier...

 

Are there any such examples in other cRPGs? I can't really recollect any...

Edited October 2, 2012 by agewisdom

[RosesandAshes]

I don't know of any CRPGs that did it, although an early quest in PS:T involved a box with a demon inside it that apparently showed up later in the game. (Note to self: Start playing that game again.)

 

I really liked how this was implemented in The Witcher, consequences weren't apparent until later and no choice was ever completely the "right" one.

[ogrezilla]

sounds like a good idea to me.

[agewisdom]

I don't know of any CRPGs that did it, although an early quest in PS:T involved a box with a demon inside it that apparently showed up later in the game. (Note to self: Start playing that game again.)

 

I really liked how this was implemented in The Witcher, consequences weren't apparent until later and no choice was ever completely the "right" one.

 

Yes, I loved the Elves quest in the Witcher.... "We're just innocent elves smuggling food for our poor children...." and yeah, I got fooled Drats! Couldn't save scum for that one since I didn't have one that went back far enough.

 

It would be good if we had one or 2 chained quest that has some rippling effects as you progress further into the game...

[GhostofAnakin]

 

I really liked how this was implemented in The Witcher, consequences weren't apparent until later and no choice was ever completely the "right" one.

 

This x1000.

 

In fact, it should almost be its own topic. But it would be interesting to see PE implement choices that aren't necessarily "good or evil" or "right or wrong", but rather two different options (or more than two) that have different consequences associated with them. The Witcher 2 did this well, where "siding" with Iorveth or Roche wasn't necessarily good or evil, but resulted in quite a different rest of the game.

 

I'd like more options that require the player to choose between two grey area options rather than clicking on the one that corresponds with playing a "good" or a "bad" character.

[agewisdom]

Grey options are the best but it might be a bit difficult since this will be the first game in the Project Eternity setting. Everything is so new, that trying to add ambiguity and layers to the different factions may be a bit confusing.

 

CDRed was very daring in the Witcher 2 by having two alternative paths that were totally different depending on who you decided to side with. I don't expect something so radical in PE but it would be nice if the PC's decision in one or more major quests early in the game would have ripple effects and consequences that would permeate through the latter parts of the game.

Edited October 2, 2012 by agewisdom

[Aldereth]

Quite agree. Not seeing immediate reward/punishment add depth and replayability. Just want to add not to make this too often and the consequence too far reaching to make this annoying.

 

On a separate note, I would also like to see a viable and interesting path after negative consequence. By that I mean, after a player make a poor decision and people die (and I don't mean those decision the game force you to make). In most cases, the player will reload. I have yet to see a cRPG that have a viable and interesting path after some negative outcome from an ecounter.

[Katrar]

I am hoping that the choice system has some significant long game consequences. The fact that OE made Alpha Protocol, and that they apparently love that game, gives me hope that the type of branching story-line system that was so central to that game might have some (at least limited) application in PE.

[Longknife]

I just don't want unpredictable outcomes; I want the player to be able to anticipate the outcome, at least to an extent. For example, I think if you give a beggar a coin and then buys a lottery ticket and wins the lottery and decides to give you half his winnings, that's ridiculous. The player who gave the beggar the middle finger will be swearing at the game, screaming "how the hell was I supposed to know that would happen!?!" The outcome should in some way be predictable. That means no "oh this person I rescued turns out to be a prince!" or "turns out I killed the nephew of the toughest bounty hunter in the world" or things like that. Of course people you help should be grateful and might repay you somehow, but you shouldn't see dramatic outcomes to such decisions.

 

 

 

 

Convenient benefits or inconvenient consequences? Sure. I DO think there's a beauty in, several roads later, being hit with consequences and realizing "ooooh, that's why I shouldn't've done that..." One that I like is the NCR-Great Khan conflict in Boulder City. You may shoot up the Great Khans because who cares? They helped bury your grave, they seem like jerks whereas the NCR has been nice so far, why help them or settle things peacefully? Well because unknown to you, they're actually very kind to their "family" and if you help them get out of there, they treat you as such and give you fair deals on their weapons and ammo, buying items from you at full price. Is it neccesary to have access to their merchant? Not in the slightest; there are 2-3 other NPCs with larger stockpiles of ammo so you're really only missing out on someone who gives you fair prices, but even then she lives kinda out of the way. Is it convenient? Hell yes it is, and it's reason enough to make the player glad they helped out WITHOUT making the player who killed them swear at the game and say "how the hell was I supposed to know that would happen?!" It's a big enough bonus that the guy who helped feels fulfilled, but also an optional enough convenience of a perk that the guy who killed them can shrug it off.

 

Make it like that. Maybe a quest gives you the option to help bandits kill a traveling merchant and you get a cut of his stuff, then if you do, when you reach the next town and maybe some time passes, the store owner complains he hasn't gotten a delivery in a while now so his inventory is smaller and prices slightly steeper. You might not've expected this to happen when you commited the act, but it's logical when you see the outcome, and it's realistic. Likewise you can decide you want to kill the bandits for even suggesting such a plan, then the result is that later you'll find a larger inventory and slightly cheaper prices in the shops of the town up the street because they're being supplied properly.

[agewisdom]

Just want to add not to make this too often and the consequence too far reaching to make this annoying.

 

On a separate note, I would also like to see a viable and interesting path after negative consequence. By that I mean, after a player make a poor decision and people die (and I don't mean those decision the game force you to make). In most cases, the player will reload. I have yet to see a cRPG that have a viable and interesting path after some negative outcome from an ecounter.

 

Agreed on not making too many quests of this type. In fact, I believe it should be restricted to around maybe say 3 quests but ones than span throughout the game. It should be a major side quest, with appropriate grave consequences. This would avoid diminishing its' impact.

 

A path to redemption huh... , definitely great. At least the PC has some way to make amends for his/her mistakes.

[Infinitron]

This is one thing that I'm 100% sure we don't have to explicitly ask Obsidian for. Choices and consequences is what they do.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Infinitron

[agewisdom]

I just don't want unpredictable outcomes; I want the player to be able to anticipate the outcome, at least to an extent. For example, I think if you give a beggar a coin and then buys a lottery ticket and wins the lottery and decides to give you half his winnings, that's ridiculous. The player who gave the beggar the middle finger will be swearing at the game, screaming "how the hell was I supposed to know that would happen!?!" The outcome should in some way be predictable. That means no "oh this person I rescued turns out to be a prince!" or "turns out I killed the nephew of the toughest bounty hunter in the world" or things like that. Of course people you help should be grateful and might repay you somehow, but you shouldn't see dramatic outcomes to such decisions.

 

Agreed. It should be a reasonably predictable outcome and not something ludricious. For instance, giving a coin to the beggar in your example could have the following result much later in the game. The very same beggar could warn you about an ambush set up by a rival adventuring party in a dark alley near where you encountered the beggar in the first place. After all, what goes around, comes around. Fair enough?

 

I like your example on the bandits. Quite a fair outcome and one that makes sense.

Edited October 2, 2012 by agewisdom

[agewisdom]

This is one thing that I'm 100% sure we don't have to explicitly ask Obsidian for. Choices and consequences is what they do.

 

I'm pretty confident with Obsidian too... But it would be nice if we have more of a "delayed" consequence to prevent players save-scumming to get the best possible outcome on the first play-through.

[Orogun01]

It's a particularly tricky thing to do because on one hand they have to keep track of it and incorporate it into the story, so it restrict them but its also a good way to guide the story where they want it to go.

 

The bad way to do it is "The Witcher", an unforeseen consequence to an unrelated action (e.g: if you save the elves they kill an NPC vital to a quest)

The good way to do it is "The Witcher 2", choices that affect the way that the story progresses locking you towards a smaller set of options.

[Undecaf]

It should be a reasonably predictable outcome

 

I don't know if predictable would be the word I'd use for the optimal case of consequences. It should be reasonably logical and explained when it occurs, predictable or not; and generally, I would like to see some surprises here and there too because sometimes the unthinkable and/or unpredictable occurences do happen.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Undecaf

[Tale]

This is one thing that I'm 100% sure we don't have to explicitly ask Obsidian for. Choices and consequences is what they do.

 

I'm pretty confident with Obsidian too... But it would be nice if we have more of a "delayed" consequence to prevent players save-scumming to get the best possible outcome on the first play-through.

It'd be better for all events to have consequences, delayed or no. All should be valid, just for different reasons and to different people.

 

First play-through be bleeped. All playthroughs should be roughly equivalent in this regard. Gotchas are cheap.

[Katrar]

I just don't want unpredictable outcomes; I want the player to be able to anticipate the outcome, at least to an extent. For example, I think if you give a beggar a coin and then buys a lottery ticket and wins the lottery and decides to give you half his winnings, that's ridiculous. The player who gave the beggar the middle finger will be swearing at the game, screaming "how the hell was I supposed to know that would happen!?!" The outcome should in some way be predictable. That means no "oh this person I rescued turns out to be a prince!" or "turns out I killed the nephew of the toughest bounty hunter in the world" or things like that. Of course people you help should be grateful and might repay you somehow, but you shouldn't see dramatic outcomes to such decisions.

 

 

 

 

Convenient benefits or inconvenient consequences? Sure. I DO think there's a beauty in, several roads later, being hit with consequences and realizing "ooooh, that's why I shouldn't've done that..." One that I like is the NCR-Great Khan conflict in Boulder City. You may shoot up the Great Khans because who cares? They helped bury your grave, they seem like jerks whereas the NCR has been nice so far, why help them or settle things peacefully? Well because unknown to you, they're actually very kind to their "family" and if you help them get out of there, they treat you as such and give you fair deals on their weapons and ammo, buying items from you at full price. Is it neccesary to have access to their merchant? Not in the slightest; there are 2-3 other NPCs with larger stockpiles of ammo so you're really only missing out on someone who gives you fair prices, but even then she lives kinda out of the way. Is it convenient? Hell yes it is, and it's reason enough to make the player glad they helped out WITHOUT making the player who killed them swear at the game and say "how the hell was I supposed to know that would happen?!" It's a big enough bonus that the guy who helped feels fulfilled, but also an optional enough convenience of a perk that the guy who killed them can shrug it off.

 

Make it like that. Maybe a quest gives you the option to help bandits kill a traveling merchant and you get a cut of his stuff, then if you do, when you reach the next town and maybe some time passes, the store owner complains he hasn't gotten a delivery in a while now so his inventory is smaller and prices slightly steeper. You might not've expected this to happen when you commited the act, but it's logical when you see the outcome, and it's realistic. Likewise you can decide you want to kill the bandits for even suggesting such a plan, then the result is that later you'll find a larger inventory and slightly cheaper prices in the shops of the town up the street because they're being supplied properly.

 

I get your overall point but really, you don't want dramatic outcomes from story choices? No dramatic outcomes? Are we interested in playing this as a fantasy game of high adventure, or a fantasy life simulator? Is the entire POINT of these kinds of games not "dramatic outcomes"?

 

Also, you want to be able to predict everything? Really? No need for talented writers then.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Katrar

[agewisdom]

It's a particularly tricky thing to do because on one hand they have to keep track of it and incorporate it into the story, so it restrict them but its also a good way to guide the story where they want it to go.

 

The bad way to do it is "The Witcher", an unforeseen consequence to an unrelated action (e.g: if you save the elves they kill an NPC vital to a quest)

The good way to do it is "The Witcher 2", choices that affect the way that the story progresses locking you towards a smaller set of options.

 

Yes, tricky but has a good pay-off if implemented properly. But definitely should be small in no. to prevent it from getting overly complex.

 

Whilst the Witcher 2 choice was great, I still think the Witcher 1 consequence wasn't all that bad. If you reflect back on what happened, in hindsight, the outcome made sense. Yes, it was bad that the NPC died, but just like in real life, not all outcomes are foreseeable. But I definitely understand that such type of consequence should be kept to a minimum to reduce the annoyance factor.

[Umberlin]

Longstanding consequences are an admirable goal, but I imagine hard to do right. If they can do them right, and well, I'm all for them. Especially if the results may not be what you intended, reflecting the fact that the best intentions . . . (or the worst) can have very different consequences in the long run than what the immediate action may suggest. Echoes of Kreia.

[agewisdom]

I get your overall point but really, you don't want dramatic outcomes from story choices? No dramatic outcomes? Are we interested in playing this as a fantasy game of high adventure, or a fantasy life simulator? Is the entire POINT of these kinds of games not "dramatic outcomes"?

 

Also, you want to be able to predict everything? Really? No need for talented writers then.

 

I think what we want is an outcome that fits into the storyline or lore of the quest. It could be something unexpected, but there could be some small hints or foreshadowing, so that the PC has some responsibility or guilt over what happened.

 

For instance, if you were to meet Mr. X (an NPC) that's dying and asking for your help, do you rob him of his valuable and leave him to his death or save him? If the PC was just asked to make this decision without any further information, then any delayed consequences may just annoy him.

 

But... if:

(a) On his path, he heard rumours about about Mr. X's (the son of a powerful warlord) party being ambushed and Mr. X missing;

(b) He notes the NPC is wearing clothes that indicates that he's wealthy; and

© His companion cautions him that robbing him would not be a wise action...

 

Then if he proceeds to rob and leave Mr. X to his death may have some nasty consequences in the future.

 

Without any hints, we may get players getting frustrated and complaining... "how was I to know..."

[Wintersong]

If your desire for delayed consequences is due to "save scumming", that's not a good reason for this planned single player game. But of course, I find amusing that people need Iroman mode to accept the dead of their character and not load an older saved game. What forbids them from just deleting the save file themselves if the character dies? The same thing that prevents them from making back ups of their Iroman mode save file: nothing.

 

In any case, I was (maybe foolishly) considering as a given that actions would not only have inmediate consequences in PE.

[agewisdom]

If your desire for delayed consequences is due to "save scumming", that's not a good reason for this planned single player game. But of course, I find amusing that people need Iroman mode to accept the dead of their character and not load an older saved game. What forbids them from just deleting the save file themselves if the character dies? The same thing that prevents them from making back ups of their Iroman mode save file: nothing.

 

In any case, I was (maybe foolishly) considering as a given that actions would not only have inmediate consequences in PE.

 

It's not to prevent save scumming per se. It's more to allow for a more authentic or genuine role play where the PC just has to deal with the consequences of his or her actions. But, when you get immediate outcomes of certain decisions, it tends to make (some) players gravitate to decisions which gives the highest XP or loot...

[Waywocket]

If your desire for delayed consequences is due to "save scumming", that's not a good reason for this planned single player game. But of course, I find amusing that people need Iroman mode to accept the dead of their character and not load an older saved game. What forbids them from just deleting the save file themselves if the character dies? The same thing that prevents them from making back ups of their Iroman mode save file: nothing.

 

In any case, I was (maybe foolishly) considering as a given that actions would not only have inmediate consequences in PE.

 

It's not to prevent save scumming per se. It's more to allow for a more authentic or genuine role play where the PC just has to deal with the consequences of his or her actions. But, when you get immediate outcomes of certain decisions, it tends to make (some) players gravitate to decisions which gives the highest XP or loot...

 

But when you have options where one outcome is obviously 'better' than another, but you don't know what the consequences are until 8 hours later, all that leads to is a non-trivial number of people consulting a walkthrough every five minutes so that it doesn't happen again.

 

It's far better game design if the player's actions have consequences in that there are changes to the state of the world, but without there being outcomes which are obviously better than others. For a simplistic example, if I side with one guy over another, then that shouldn't mean I miss out on a quest line two chapters later, but it might mean I get a different quest line, as long as neither outcome gives phat loot that the other doesn't.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Waywocket

[Stiler]

The Witcher I/II has done it the best imo. Your choices weren't strictly black and white/good or bad and the affects of your choices could come back much later into the game instead of right after you make it.

 

I hope PE has some fairly decent choices (and it isn't good/bad but rather morally grey) and the affects of your choices aren't immediate or known until later.

 

It makes the world feel more alive and gives more meaning behind what you do.

[ogrezilla]

If your desire for delayed consequences is due to "save scumming", that's not a good reason for this planned single player game. But of course, I find amusing that people need Iroman mode to accept the dead of their character and not load an older saved game. What forbids them from just deleting the save file themselves if the character dies? The same thing that prevents them from making back ups of their Iroman mode save file: nothing.

 

In any case, I was (maybe foolishly) considering as a given that actions would not only have inmediate consequences in PE.

 

It's not to prevent save scumming per se. It's more to allow for a more authentic or genuine role play where the PC just has to deal with the consequences of his or her actions. But, when you get immediate outcomes of certain decisions, it tends to make (some) players gravitate to decisions which gives the highest XP or loot...

 

But when you have options where one outcome is obviously 'better' than another, but you don't know what the consequences are until 8 hours later, all that leads to is a non-trivial number of people consulting a walkthrough every five minutes so that it doesn't happen again.

 

It's far better game design if the player's actions have consequences in that there are changes to the state of the world, but without there being outcomes which are obviously better than others. For a simplistic example, if I side with one guy over another, then that shouldn't mean I miss out on a quest line two chapters later, but it might mean I get a different quest line, as long as neither outcome gives phat loot that the other doesn't.

there should be ways to further investigate the situations before making the decision. So you have the option of making the choice, or going and checking further into the situation. If you just make a rash decision, then the results should be harder to predict.