Project Eternity to use a "Dispositions" morality system similar to Torment: Tides of Numenera's Tides

[Infinitron]

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506352&pagenumber=508#post421807132
 

 

Dispositions are another type of reputation. They track the personality(ies) of your behavior and are separate from individual location/faction reputations. Fewer characters will respond to these reputations, but they tend to have a stronger reaction and allow individual characters to express a personal stance that reflects something contrary to their faction. E.g. if you save a village by brutalizing the bandits, torturing their accomplices, and executing their leader after he begs for mercy, you will probably be well-liked by most people in the village (positive village rep) but will also earn a separate reputation for being cruel and merciless (Cruel rep). The high priest at the temple of the mercy god is probably not going to be a fan.

This also applies to more subtle interactions like being sassy/witty (Clever), quiet/unmoved (Stoic), and so on. It's not primarily about how you complete quests (though that's part of it), but tracking the moment-to-moment choices you make in common interactions. It should allow you to feel like replies that were previously throwaway choices for brief NPC reactions have a little more significance.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Infinitron

[curryinahurry]

Hmmm....not sure how this will work effectively.  If it provides flavor, it might be ok. As long as we don't wind up with de facto alignments out of this type of mechanic.

[Nonek]

A public reputation versus a private disposition, I smell a perfect opportunity for budding sociopaths.

[Cultist]

[IndiraLightfoot]

I really like this. It will make the game more complicated and fun. I mean, having a full party going is borderline split personality already, and now we get to go all in. It will be madness and mayhem, I tell you, and I like it.

[Sacred_Path]

let's see if people are fans of actual consequences to go with their choices

[Tamerlane]

Seems like a natural extension of their work with Alpha Protocol.

 

This is A Good Thing.

[C2B]

I don't think its all that similiar to the tides. Seems more like expanding on previous ideas.

Edited November 13, 2013 by C2B

[mcmanusaur]

That's cool with me, but I just really hope reputation and disposition have an active effect on the NPC as an agent, rather than a passive effect on the NPC as a tool for measuring the player's reputation and disposition. If all reputation and disposition changes is dialog, then it's sort of just self-indulgence for the player.

 

What made me think about this was the "priest of mercy god" example. If you commit cruel acts, is he just going to insult and frown at you when you try to talk to him (regardless of the priestly way he does this it still amounts to the behavior of a passive-aggressive child), or might he actually engage you more actively because he sees it as a challenge to "reconcile" you?

Edited November 13, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[IndiraLightfoot]

Indeed. And let the faction reputations and private dispositions be not just skin deep, like in New Vegas. It often led to absurd situations and consequences, even bugs, and all because you donned a new set of clothes.

[tajerio]

That's cool with me, but I just really hope reputation and disposition have an active effect on the NPC as an agent, rather than a passive effect on the NPC as a tool for measuring the player's reputation and disposition. If all reputation and disposition changes is dialog, then it's sort of just self-indulgence for the player.

 

What made me think about this was the "priest of mercy god" example. If you commit cruel acts, is he just going to insult and frown at you when you try to talk to him (regardless of the priestly way he does this it still amounts to the behavior of a passive-aggressive child), or might he actually engage you more actively because he sees it as a challenge to "reconcile" you?

 

I would suspect (without any actual proof) that it will tend to be passive in nature most of the time, but will have a few active moments (a couple of different quest resolutions, slightly different quest-taking options).

[rjshae]

Based upon the description, it looks like a form of moral absolutism. Other than perhaps having a different categorization, how does this differ from the alignment system in D&D?

[IndiraLightfoot]

I wouldn't mind such a system, despite its absolute traits in a game. However, hopefully it's just a matter of general categories jogging along some RPG reactivity in the game, and not so much ethics-laden absolutes.

[Tamerlane]

Based upon the description, it looks like a form of moral absolutism. Other than perhaps having a different categorization, how does this differ from the alignment system in D&D?

I think the difference is that D&D's alignment system was meant to say "This is what you are. You are lawful neutral." whereas this is meant to say "This is what people see you as. They think you're a ****."

[Tale]

Based upon the description, it looks like a form of moral absolutism. Other than perhaps having a different categorization, how does this differ from the alignment system in D&D?

Because D&D alignment has two things, "law/chaos" and "good/evil." Both of which are very abstract and poorly presented. I mean, what are you talking about? The law of the land, a code of conduct, orderly behavior? Moral good, greater good?

 

This one sounds to be more specific ("mercy") and with probably more than just two.

[Tamerlane]

D&D needs to make "Cruel Sassy" an alignment.

[Sacred_Path]

To answer my own question: I want to shape the gameworld in accordance with my character concept. Not the other way round. So expect a fair bit of bitching and moaning from my side.

 

Getting an unwanted disposition on my character may prompt me to reload. Character death/ maiming would not. I don't know if that's typical RPGer behavior or not.

[Karkarov]

Well I don't have anything to complain about since this is how I would run a reputation/alignment system if i were in charge of the game.  Cudos to Obsidian and Sawyer for doing something a little bit more detailed and logical.

[rjshae]

 

Based upon the description, it looks like a form of moral absolutism. Other than perhaps having a different categorization, how does this differ from the alignment system in D&D?

Because D&D alignment has two things, "law/chaos" and "good/evil." Both of which are very abstract and poorly presented. I mean, what are you talking about? The law of the land, a code of conduct, orderly behavior? Moral good, greater good?

 

This one sounds to be more specific ("mercy") and with probably more than just two.

 

Which, again, is just a different categorization. Not that I'm complaining; I just wondered if it was fundamentally different.

 

 

 

Based upon the description, it looks like a form of moral absolutism. Other than perhaps having a different categorization, how does this differ from the alignment system in D&D?

I think the difference is that D&D's alignment system was meant to say "This is what you are. You are lawful neutral." whereas this is meant to say "This is what people see you as. They think you're a ****."

 

Okay, so more of a dynamic system defined by your interactions rather than a fixed disadvantage system.

[Gfted1]

So my "well liked" Paladin is going to bicker with my "cruel" Fighter?

 

Probably have to send them to the rest spot to cool off.

[mcmanusaur]

To answer my own question: I want to shape the gameworld in accordance with my character concept. Not the other way round. So expect a fair bit of bitching and moaning from my side.

 

Getting an unwanted disposition on my character may prompt me to reload. Character death/ maiming would not. I don't know if that's typical RPGer behavior or not.

 

Yes, wanting the game world to center around one's character as the primary agent is perfectly normal behavior for RPG players, in my experience... the polar opposite of how I like to approach RPGs, however. I can understand the desire to adhere to a character concept, but in both multiplayer sessions and well-done singleplayer settings that's never totally possible, and for me it just ends up as a conflict of agency.

Edited November 13, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Karkarov]

Okay, so more of a dynamic system defined by your interactions rather than a fixed disadvantage system.

This is how it works.

 

You are given a job to clean the stables by Bob the Stable Master.  You can just go and do it and Bob will like you more for doing the work while the village on the whole likes you more too.  Or you could not do it and Bob + village think you are a shirking jerkface.  Or you can bully Little Timmy into doing it for you, and now you get bonuses with Bob and Village but the Village kids know you are a **** bully and they won't like you.

 

In D&D your alignment was a mechanic and it was something you picked.  If you were nuetral evil someone could bust a protection from evil on you.  There is no protection from jerkface spell.  Meanwhile this is a reputation system based on your actual actions and the factions/people they effect.  In my stables example you are in the Village of Podunk.  Do you think people changed what they think about you in the City of Bigtown though?  No.  They couldn't care less about how you resolved the Stable Issue in Podunk.  But what if you instead say... join a mercenary army that one day lays siege to Podunk and burns it plus stable to the ground?  Well the people in Bigtown probably noticed that one.

 

In other words if you don't like a reaction you are getting... you have no one to blame but yourself.  Because this type of system works by basing it's scores on the things you actually choose to do.  Both the little and big ones.

[Orogun01]

Or I could blame Timmy for being a tattletale and run him with my sword.

[ManifestedISO]

This sounds ten times more interesting. I can't think of a better way to get people to replay the game.

[J.E. Sawyer]

To be clear, by default any choice that will impact your reputations (personality or otherwise) will be highlighted as such.  You're not going to "whoopsy-daisy" pick a cruel option and not know you're getting Cruel rep by doing so unless you opt to turn those indications off.  Naturally, these indications are always off if you're in Expert mode.

 

E: And to be even clearer, it's not a morality system.  You don't pick personalities for your character to "have".  You do things in the game that are tagged with certain personality aspects and they contribute to your reputation for being that kind of a person.  The choices you have made previously do not limit your ability to make choices in the future.  You can be Benevolent for hours and hours and decide that at this particular point in time, Cruelty is required.  If you're Cruel or Benevolent or Clever every once in a while, it's unlikely that anyone outside of the people immediately involved in those circumstances will ever respond; you simply don't have a high enough rep in that personality for it to be a big part of your reputation.  The system is meant to pay attention to your consistent patterns of behavior and have characters react to it just as they would react to faction reputations.