story decisions as a game mechanic

[Jymm]

I have to admit, I hate this idea. And yes, I do at times also participate in the bioware forums.

 

One of my great frustrations with traditional P&P roleplaying is when a great idea goes down to exceptionally poor die rolls. This feels like that result. Once I figured out that choice results were random I would end up either a) reloading every situation 25 times to see what outcomes were possible or b) quitting the game for good because nothing I choose to do matters. Probably option a for an evening or two then direct to option b.

 

No offense at all intended, its a novel idea and I appreciate you proposing it. But if I find out a game does this, I am flat out not buying it.

[PsychoBlonde]

It's one of those things that, if you don't go all the way with it throughout the whole game world, you might as well not have done it. You give someone a swingset and they'll enjoy it as best they can. But, if you give someone a playground, then tell them they can only use the swingset, they're going to be upset.

 

However, if they CAN get things to that level, then I SAY YAY!

 

This is actually an area where using mini-games can bail you out. If you design the special encounters as individual mini-games, you don't have to worry (too much) about trying to apply universal rules to your entire game world. So you can focus on the universal stuff that gives you the most bang for your buck.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

But if, instead of true random, you use some pseudo-random thingie which makes sure you break even in the long run, everybody can be satisfied.

[Lephys]

It's one of those things that, if you don't go all the way with it throughout the whole game world, you might as well not have done it. You give someone a swingset and they'll enjoy it as best they can. But, if you give someone a playground, then tell them they can only use the swingset, they're going to be upset.

 

However, if they CAN get things to that level, then I SAY YAY!

 

This is actually an area where using mini-games can bail you out. If you design the special encounters as individual mini-games, you don't have to worry (too much) about trying to apply universal rules to your entire game world. So you can focus on the universal stuff that gives you the most bang for your buck.

 

True, true. However, going that route, you have one of two options:

 

A), make epic quest 1 a super-cool, in-depth minigame with awesomely unique mechanics that make everything seem extremely dynamic, then make the rest of the game (that isn't coded with minigame mechanics) comparatively bland (i.e. only a couple of outcomes and choices to affect things)

 

OR

 

B) Decide you want the majority of the game to feel as dynamic, and program every single in-depth quest with its own minigame-esque mechanics. Which probably wouldn't really save you much time or many resources as compared to simply coding the game mechanics to provide such dynamicism all the time.

 

I guess my point is that, if you agree that such a level of dynamicism in quest-tackling is amazing, but you only put it into a couple of parts of the game, that's only going to emphasize how absent it is from the rest of the game. Sure, I suppose it's better than its absence from the entire game. But, you're going to have all those people wondering why all the other quests weren't that awesome.

[wanderon]

It's one of those things that, if you don't go all the way with it throughout the whole game world, you might as well not have done it. You give someone a swingset and they'll enjoy it as best they can. But, if you give someone a playground, then tell them they can only use the swingset, they're going to be upset.

 

However, if they CAN get things to that level, then I SAY YAY!

 

This is actually an area where using mini-games can bail you out. If you design the special encounters as individual mini-games, you don't have to worry (too much) about trying to apply universal rules to your entire game world. So you can focus on the universal stuff that gives you the most bang for your buck.

 

True, true. However, going that route, you have one of two options:

 

 

A), make epic quest 1 a super-cool, in-depth minigame with awesomely unique mechanics that make everything seem extremely dynamic, then make the rest of the game (that isn't coded with minigame mechanics) comparatively bland (i.e. only a couple of outcomes and choices to affect things)

 

OR

 

B) Decide you want the majority of the game to feel as dynamic, and program every single in-depth quest with its own minigame-esque mechanics. Which probably wouldn't really save you much time or many resources as compared to simply coding the game mechanics to provide such dynamicism all the time.

 

I guess my point is that, if you agree that such a level of dynamicism in quest-tackling is amazing, but you only put it into a couple of parts of the game, that's only going to emphasize how absent it is from the rest of the game. Sure, I suppose it's better than its absence from the entire game. But, you're going to have all those people wondering why all the other quests weren't that awesome.

 

Thats assuming one finds the idea of quests that operate "randomly" awesome - count me as opposed to that scenario even on a limited basis - now if it was done on a limited basis I might put up with it and just complain a bit - if it was gamewide I probably wouldn't even load it up.

[Lephys]

Thats assuming one finds the idea of quests that operate "randomly" awesome - count me as opposed to that scenario even on a limited basis - now if it was done on a limited basis I might put up with it and just complain a bit - if it was gamewide I probably wouldn't even load it up.

 

That's assuming mistakenly, then. I was referring to dynamics, not random chance. As in, "because you didn't go help this screaming lady who was being attacked by zombies, you STILL saved the town, but she perished" as opposed to "you either saved the entire town, or you completely failed to save the town. These are the only two possible outcomes."

 

Really it could be argued with 3, or 4, even, but the greater the number of outcomes, the more dynamic the gameplay becomes, in a very primitive sense. Two is just the fewest you can have without it being not a functional game.

 

But, yes, I've actually stated that I'm against randomizing quest outcomes. Random quest BRANCHING, maybe, sure... Maybe Orcs attack the town instead of bandits, or maybe the attack comes at night instead of during the day. Randomizing the factors of your situation, or the path available to you (literally... again, I don't "path" as in "the path to peace" or anything) is fine. But, having you go out of your way to muster 50 extra troops, then somehow randomly failing to protect the town against 7 bandits is pretty rage-inducing. Just the fact that, no matter what choices you made, they just so HAPPENED to not matter.

 

It's another thing entirely if, as part of the story, you simply cannot save a town or produce a certain quest outcome, ever.

[Ninjamestari]

I don't think this idea would work; it promotes repetitive saving/loading rather than creative thinking. The outcome should depend on the choices and performance of the player, not random chance.

[JFSOCC]

I'm not sure there should be a chance specifically that the stuff you did would produce the OPPOSITE effect, you know? I mean, where do you draw the line there?

 

"I choose to not kill this guy who might've deserved it, because I am merciful."

 

*Some game-engine dice roll*

 

"Oh no, he died of a heart attack mere moments after you decided to spare him!"

 

That could just get REALLY annoying.

 

BUT, using the zombie-assault example, I DO think it would be cool if the chance affected how things panned out. i.e. you planned out this elaborate trap for the zombies using a single person and lots of fire, but now some other things in the town caught fire, and you've got to make your way through town rather quickly to try and douse flames, fighting some straggling, flaming zombies along the way who just haven't had the decency to re-die yet. OR, the person in the center of town panics (assuming they were supposed to light the fireworks) and fails to do so, and you've got to end up lighting them, which would be difficult. OR, the basement folk get attacked after all, and you've got to try to go help them.

 

I'm just very, very against the "Welp, it turns out everyone died anyway" odds. I don't mind people dying, and bad things unavoidably happening in an RPG story, but I don't want it to seem like I have the ability to do something, then turn out that, through random chance, I actually couldn't accomplish half of what it was suggested I could.

 

Random behavior/occurrence-development: GOOD! 8D

Random consequences? Baddddd...

I think you may misunderstand the premise. It would be apparent beforehand that some options are riskier than others. It wouldn't be the heart attack example, but rather he can go on to redeem himself, or he can decide "ah **** it, I can go on being the bad guy muhahaha" (to put it bluntly)

 

Random consequences based on chance, and some insight to what the possible outcomes might be beforehand, and I think this would make the game a lot more organic. with no playthrough exactly the same, even if you do everything exactly the same. Now that's replayability!

[JFSOCC]

I don't think this idea would work; it promotes repetitive saving/loading rather than creative thinking. The outcome should depend on the choices and performance of the player, not random chance.

chance, not random chance.

[wanderon]

I don't think this idea would work; it promotes repetitive saving/loading rather than creative thinking. The outcome should depend on the choices and performance of the player, not random chance.

chance, not random chance.

 

How is it not random if the result of your choice is based on a dice roll regardless of how much or little "insight" you are given?

[Lephys]

^ I believe JFSOCC was correcting the statement on a technicality. Randomness is an aspect of chance, so chance can't technically BE random. Chance is chance.

 

 

I think you may misunderstand the premise. It would be apparent beforehand that some options are riskier than others. It wouldn't be the heart attack example, but rather he can go on to redeem himself, or he can decide "ah **** it, I can go on being the bad guy muhahaha" (to put it bluntly)

 

Random consequences based on chance, and some insight to what the possible outcomes might be beforehand, and I think this would make the game a lot more organic. with no playthrough exactly the same, even if you do everything exactly the same. Now that's replayability!

 

I understand that premise. I was arguing against the idea put forth about the horde of zombies situation, in which you actively prepare for it by consolidating the town's population in the safest place in town, then set up a giant inferno trap for the zombies and lure them into it. Naturally I can't locate the section to quote now, *fail*, but it suggested an example of chance having it that either:

 

A) Despite all of your efforts, the zombies just so happen to bypass all of your trappy bits and assault the civilians, and a bunch of them die.

 

B) Even though you're putting all your focus into being safe, your inferno trap kills all the zombies, but then it just so happens that your fire spreads to the civilian building, again causing heavy casualties.

 

The idea of your trap failing to ultra-efficiently dispatch the zombie horde and your having to deal directly with them in order to keep the civilians safe is splendid. The possibility of a fire breaking out and your having to go extinguish it as quickly as possible and/or get the civilians out of the building is also great. It was the suggestion that chance be directly involved in the outcome itself (i.e. the zombies bypass your trap and kill everyone, or the fire burns the building down and kills everyone simply because the building caught ablaze at all) was what I'm not in favor of.

 

That might have not been the intention of the person who posted such examples, but they didn't make it clear that they were referring to chance producing random changes in circumstances rather than jumping straight to outcomes.