Delayed Consequences & Ripple Effects

[Keyrock]

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.

Yeah, The Witcher series is the gold standard for difficult moral choices and far reaching/unexpected consequences. If Project Eternity tries to emulate those games in that regard to some degree I would be all for it.

[Tale]

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.

I think one should always assume the player knows. The only real value to having rush options is for players who explicitly wants to characterize themselves as recklessly rushing through situations. That is valuable, yes, but trying to use it to punish or otherwise go GOTCHA at other players seems unwise. It won't trick them on subsequent playthroughs and there are too many resources (such as forums and walkthroughs) that prevent it on the first playthrough.

 

And trying just seems like you're trying to be a jerk to the player. It violates a trust between player and DM. If the player trusts the DM enough to not spoil the outcome of quests, do you really want to ruin that by making it a notably bad outcome? These people should be cherished.

[Osvir]

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.

Yeah, The Witcher series is the gold standard for difficult moral choices and far reaching/unexpected consequences. If Project Eternity tries to emulate those games in that regard to some degree I would be all for it.

 

What do you think about "Living Quests"? Quest's that travels from town to town, completing themselves during a time period and you can "enter" their environments at any point in them if you would come across them. From a roleplaying perspective the possibilities to "why" those quests complete themselves is an endless list created in our imagination.

 

A village is being taken over by bandits, if enough time passes, they will take it over and it will instead turn into a bandit fortress.

 

How could you, in-game, be warned about this? Messenger's, travelers, Caravan's, escapers and so forth. Would you instead have been by the village, you could have entered it full in fight, bandit vs villager. Or perhaps you have stayed in this village~ around this area for a while, and the villager's have been complaining about bandits being more aggressive and being afraid of an impending attack for something that happened in the village (Someone got insulted perhaps?). So you decide to stop them.

 

A Divine Divinity world is great to travel through *hint hint*

 

Time should have an influence on quests, that's what I am trying to say. The old man who wants you to buy food for him won't sit there waiting rotting in the sun, he'll do things. Now not saying to give -all- Quests or people these features of "Living". But some that effects your game just as you effect the course of history within the game.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Osvir

[ogrezilla]

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.

I think one should always assume the player knows. The only real value to having rush options is for players who explicitly wants to characterize themselves as recklessly rushing through situations. That is valuable, yes, but trying to use it to punish or otherwise go GOTCHA at other players seems unwise. It won't trick them on subsequent playthroughs and there are too many resources (such as forums and walkthroughs) that prevent it on the first playthrough.

 

And trying just seems like you're trying to be a jerk to the player. It violates a trust between player and DM. If the player trusts the DM enough to not spoil the outcome of quests, do you really want to ruin that by making it a notably bad outcome? These people should be cherished.

I would very much enjoy occasional bad outcomes. The problem I guess then comes on the second playthrough where it feels more gamey.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Keyrock]

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.

Yeah, The Witcher series is the gold standard for difficult moral choices and far reaching/unexpected consequences. If Project Eternity tries to emulate those games in that regard to some degree I would be all for it.

 

What do you think about "Living Quests"? Quest's that travels from town to town, completing themselves during a time period and you can "enter" their environments at any point in them if you would come across them. From a roleplaying perspective the possibilities to "why" those quests complete themselves is an endless list created in our imagination.

 

A village is being taken over by bandits, if enough time passes, they will take it over and it will instead turn into a bandit fortress.

 

How could you, in-game, be warned about this? Messenger's, travelers, Caravan's, escapers and so forth.

 

A Divine Divinity world is great to travel through *hint hint*

 

Time should have an influence on quests, that's what I am trying to say. The old man who wants you to buy food for him won't sit there waiting rotting in the sun, he'll do things. Now not saying to give -all- Quests or people these features of "Living". But some that effects your game just as you effect the course of history within the game.

I wrote about something similar in Events Independent Of The Player.

[Osvir]

<3

[Tale]

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.

I think one should always assume the player knows. The only real value to having rush options is for players who explicitly wants to characterize themselves as recklessly rushing through situations. That is valuable, yes, but trying to use it to punish or otherwise go GOTCHA at other players seems unwise. It won't trick them on subsequent playthroughs and there are too many resources (such as forums and walkthroughs) that prevent it on the first playthrough.

 

And trying just seems like you're trying to be a jerk to the player. It violates a trust between player and DM. If the player trusts the DM enough to not spoil the outcome of quests, do you really want to ruin that by making it a notably bad outcome? These people should be cherished.

I would very much enjoy occasional bad outcomes. The problem I guess then comes on the second playthrough where it feels more gamey.

I like bad outcomes, too. But not on a scale of ideal outcomes vs bad outcomes. But where all outcomes are bad and you're just trying to find the one that's better for you/me.

 

Alpha Protocol's bomb scenario.

[ogrezilla]

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.

I think one should always assume the player knows. The only real value to having rush options is for players who explicitly wants to characterize themselves as recklessly rushing through situations. That is valuable, yes, but trying to use it to punish or otherwise go GOTCHA at other players seems unwise. It won't trick them on subsequent playthroughs and there are too many resources (such as forums and walkthroughs) that prevent it on the first playthrough.

 

And trying just seems like you're trying to be a jerk to the player. It violates a trust between player and DM. If the player trusts the DM enough to not spoil the outcome of quests, do you really want to ruin that by making it a notably bad outcome? These people should be cherished.

I would very much enjoy occasional bad outcomes. The problem I guess then comes on the second playthrough where it feels more gamey.

I like bad outcomes, too. But not on a scale of ideal outcomes vs bad outcomes. But where all outcomes are bad and you're just trying to find the one that's better for you/me.

 

Alpha Protocol's bomb scenario.

never played Alpha Protocol, but I think I get what you are saying. Really I just want things to be written well and make sense.

[agewisdom]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I'm not asking for all quests to have delayed consequences. I'm just asking for a handful of quests, say 3-5 out of maybe, say 100 to have some measure of delayed consequences and have some rippling effects on gameplay to mix things up a little. As have been said before, there are a few caveats I would like to be incorporated to prevent the gotcha or I have to have a walkthrough syndrome foist on the PC.

 

1. There should be some foreshadowing or way to investigate what the possible outcomes could possible entail. Maybe not a predicatable outcome but a FAIR outcome which would make sense in hindsight and jives well with the lore in-game.

 

2. Whatever decisions the PC chooses, it doesn't necessarily need to a situation where one set of choices leads to a consequence that is negative and one which is positive. There could be different consequences with different measures of good and bad depending on the type of decision taken. If a selfish decision is taken earlier, it might make a thieving faction more disposed to liking the PC and vice versa. So, things wouldn't be black and white - which may prevent the want/desire to use a walkthrough with the game on the first playthrough.

 

3. It should be sparingly used, so that the PC doesn't feel like the game is trying to trick you into gotcha situations. If it's well implemented, the player may be more circumspect with his decisions.

 

Granted these type of quests is a poor simulation of living quests. Whilst living quests are great, they then impose some form of urgency on the players to 'get on' with things which I gather some people wouldn't appreciate.

[licketysplit]

I'm all for the concept, but there has to be subtle clues for the player so he can at least make an educated guess as to how the domino effect is going to play out. From a writing standpoint I imagine it's a nightmare to pull off, and from a player standpoint it requires a solid memory and close attention to the plot.

[agewisdom]

I'm all for the concept, but there has to be subtle clues for the player so he can at least make an educated guess as to how the domino effect is going to play out. From a writing standpoint I imagine it's a nightmare to pull off, and from a player standpoint it requires a solid memory and close attention to the plot.

 

Exactly! This would differentiate it from some action RPGs masquerading as cRPGs.

But quality over quantity is what I'm looking for. An unexpected surprise to mix things up a little...

[rjshae]

I've always found the character rising from a firstie to a high level character within a few game weeks to be completely implausible. Including some significant jumps in time would allow the player to better see the consequences of their actions. I think the Conan RPG did something like this, where stretches of time and changes in locale would occur in between each adventure.

[ogrezilla]

I've always found the character rising from a firstie to a high level character within a few game weeks to be completely implausible. Including some significant jumps in time would allow the player to better see the consequences of their actions. I think the Conan RPG did something like this, where stretches of time and changes in locale would occur in between each adventure.

final fantasy tactics did that between each chapter.

[agewisdom]

I've always found the character rising from a firstie to a high level character within a few game weeks to be completely implausible. Including some significant jumps in time would allow the player to better see the consequences of their actions. I think the Conan RPG did something like this, where stretches of time and changes in locale would occur in between each adventure.

final fantasy tactics did that between each chapter.

 

Really? That's very interesting. The only recent game that had this concept involved a certain Hawke in DA2. Bitter experience, to say the least...

Edited October 3, 2012 by agewisdom

[ogrezilla]

I've always found the character rising from a firstie to a high level character within a few game weeks to be completely implausible. Including some significant jumps in time would allow the player to better see the consequences of their actions. I think the Conan RPG did something like this, where stretches of time and changes in locale would occur in between each adventure.

final fantasy tactics did that between each chapter.

 

Really? That's very interesting. The only recent game that had this concept involved a certain Hawke in DA2. Bitter experience, to say the least...

from chapter 1 to 2, but its a 2 year jump. You are a cadet in ch 1 and start ch 2 as a part of a group of mercenaries that you've been a part of for an unknown amount of time. Then every time you go from one place to another a day passes on the game calendar. I really don't remember the specific jumps between the other chapters but they were less significant I'm pretty sure. Still, the game probably takes place over a few years instead of a few weeks.

[agewisdom]

I've always found the character rising from a firstie to a high level character within a few game weeks to be completely implausible. Including some significant jumps in time would allow the player to better see the consequences of their actions. I think the Conan RPG did something like this, where stretches of time and changes in locale would occur in between each adventure.

final fantasy tactics did that between each chapter.

 

Really? That's very interesting. The only recent game that had this concept involved a certain Hawke in DA2. Bitter experience, to say the least...

from chapter 1 to 2, but its a 2 year jump. You are a cadet in ch 1 and start ch 2 as a part of a group of mercenaries that you've been a part of for an unknown amount of time. Then every time you go from one place to another a day passes on the game calendar. I really don't remember the specific jumps between the other chapters but they were less significant I'm pretty sure. Still, the game probably takes place over a few years instead of a few weeks.

 

Makes me want to try the game out

 

Usually, games gloss over the time aspect. I think having a semi-time system with some measure of aging would really add a lot to a cRPG and immersion. However, it's quite difficult to implement. Having a time system will really make a big dent in immersion when you realize the village you visited 2 years ago looks exactly the same as it does currently. Hey, it even has the same beggar sitting in the exact same place and saying the exact same things.... talk about deja vu

Edited October 3, 2012 by agewisdom

[ogrezilla]

I've always found the character rising from a firstie to a high level character within a few game weeks to be completely implausible. Including some significant jumps in time would allow the player to better see the consequences of their actions. I think the Conan RPG did something like this, where stretches of time and changes in locale would occur in between each adventure.

final fantasy tactics did that between each chapter.

 

Really? That's very interesting. The only recent game that had this concept involved a certain Hawke in DA2. Bitter experience, to say the least...

from chapter 1 to 2, but its a 2 year jump. You are a cadet in ch 1 and start ch 2 as a part of a group of mercenaries that you've been a part of for an unknown amount of time. Then every time you go from one place to another a day passes on the game calendar. I really don't remember the specific jumps between the other chapters but they were less significant I'm pretty sure. Still, the game probably takes place over a few years instead of a few weeks.

 

Makes me want to try the game out

 

Usually, games gloss over the time aspect. I think having a semi-time system with some measure of aging would really add a lot to a cRPG and immersion. However, it's quite difficult to implement. Having a time system will really make a big dent in immersion when you realize the village you visited 2 years ago looks exactly the same as it does currently. Hey, it even has the same beggar sitting in the exact same place and saying the exact same things.... talk about deja vu

don't play FFT if you are looking for a cRPG. It's a great turn based tactical combat game with a completely linear story and good party creation, but there's no real role playing. There are I think two points in the game where you get to choose between two dialogue options. The gameplay consists entirely of party management and combat though. There is a lot of story, but you simply watch it happen like a normal final fantasy game. Though I would argue its a better story than typical final fantasy.

 

And despite being present, the game doesn't really make much use of the time aspect after the jump from chapter one to chapter two. Its there, but it doesn't mean much. It actually has more combat implications than anything else, but they are minor enough (characters have zodiac signs) that I have never cared enough to pay attention to them.

 

So it is a great game, but I don't know if its what you are looking for. Take that village for example. You never actually go into towns except for battles. Everything but combat is handled on a world map including shopping and talking in bars so you don't actually see the towns.

Edited October 3, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Lady Evenstar]

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.

 

Gotchas are cheap and lead to folks feeling a need to consult walkthroughs.

[agewisdom]

Ogrezilla,

 

Thanks for the feedback for Final Fantasy Tactics. I kinda gathered it was more of a tactical/battle game probably alongst the lines of Jagged Alliance(?). I like these games too, if they're interspersed with interesting stories. Of course, cRPGs are my favourite kind of games especially those with the Obsidian flavor.

 

All this PE talk has got me in a Baldur's Gate mod again. Maybe it's time to reinstall the old baby with the Big World megamod and give it a go...

[agewisdom]

Gotchas are cheap and lead to folks feeling a need to consult walkthroughs.

 

Quests with delayed consequences doesn't necessarily need to be gotcha if you're given enough forewarning and chance to deliberate and investigate the options beforehand. Besides, there doesn't need to be a right or wrong decision, just decisions with differing outcomes. So, it wouldn't be exactly a 'gotcha'... more like:

 

"ah... so if I hadn't made the choices I had, I wonder what would have happened instead?"

Edited October 3, 2012 by agewisdom

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd be interested in having New Game+ options open up.

 

And by that, I mean if you go through the game the first time and get options A and B, and have to make a choice, both could have consequences which are good and bad. These consequences are seen in game and felt later on in the story. Good stuff.

 

 

But when you go to play the game again, the game would recognize that you've beaten the game (or even that you've beaten the game twice, and done choice A and B) and then gives you an option C that wasn't there before. This option could vary wildly in consequence, from either "Rainbows and sunshine" option that makes a choice of choosing the less of two evils more palpable, to funny/hilarious/bizarre outcomes that are outside what you would normally expect, to "kicking over the sandcastle" options, which destroy things and could possibly make the game unplayable (imagine Ultima 7 and killing Lord British or casting the Armageddon spell).

 

Could be coolish.

[agewisdom]

I'd be interested in having New Game+ options open up.

 

And by that, I mean if you go through the game the first time and get options A and B, and have to make a choice, both could have consequences which are good and bad. These consequences are seen in game and felt later on in the story. Good stuff.

 

 

But when you go to play the game again, the game would recognize that you've beaten the game (or even that you've beaten the game twice, and done choice A and B) and then gives you an option C that wasn't there before. This option could vary wildly in consequence, from either "Rainbows and sunshine" option that makes a choice of choosing the less of two evils more palpable, to funny/hilarious/bizarre outcomes that are outside what you would normally expect, to "kicking over the sandcastle" options, which destroy things and could possibly make the game unplayable (imagine Ultima 7 and killing Lord British or casting the Armageddon spell).

 

Could be coolish.

 

That would be cool but also a lot of work, for a very small minority. An Ultima fan eh.... you could cast the Armageddon spell with Mondain's skull in Ultima IV. Everyone except your party would die with one exception. Lord British still lives and would be mighty pissed. Never managed to take him down though...

[Lady Evenstar]

Gotchas are cheap and lead to folks feeling a need to consult walkthroughs.

 

Quests with delayed consequences doesn't necessarily need to be gotcha if you're given enough forewarning and chance to deliberate and investigate the options beforehand. Besides, there doesn't need to be a right or wrong decision, just decisions with differing outcomes. So, it wouldn't be exactly a 'gotcha'... more like:

 

"ah... so if I hadn't made the choices I had, I wonder what would have happened instead?"

 

I agree. My comment only applied to cases where in-game warning is lacking--cases where game-spoiling consequences feel arbitrary.

[TrashMan]

I don't think the palyeds to know everything. Who ever does in life?

 

It might lead to one or two "how as I supposed to know?" situations, but so what?

[agewisdom]

I don't think the palyeds to know everything. Who ever does in life?

 

It might lead to one or two "how as I supposed to know?" situations, but so what?

 

Yep, it might be true in real life but in PC games - it might just annoy players and make them feel compelled to use the strategy guide/walkthrough. I'm all for unexpected surprises - whether good or bad, but I think we're both in the minority here.