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

[curryinahurry]

^  That sounds pretty reasonable; a bit like a local reputation system.  If I make benevolent choices in one location and cruel ones in another, they will remain local and not follow me to another, third locale.  

 

My only question would be around choices and the potential for meta-gaming in this system.  I may be faced with a situation that I feel requires a pragmatic solution.  I make the decision that I feel follows a pragmatic course  (in expert mode let's say), and am given points in "cruel".  Well, in some situations I might feel that is okay, sometimes the pragmatic choice can be cruel. At other times, I might feel the choice I am making is not cruel and be surprised or disappointed by such a result.  Playing in default mode could be even more problematic as the potentials are being labeled.  this might encourage some to play the answer they feel gives them the correct outcome rather than the choice they would like to for their character.  

 

Of course a lot of this comes down to how things are written and may not be much of an issue.  It is good to see the extra layer of complexity in interactions.

[Wombat]

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.

Torment has five tides (blue, red, indigo, silver and gold) while Alpha Protocol had three character templates (aggressive, professional and suave) suited for the action spy genre, modelling Bauer, Ryan and Bond respectively.  Presuming the characterization system work similarly (or am I wrong?), how many templates will PE have?  So far, you have mentioned benevolent, clever, and cruel.

[Karkarov]

My only question would be around choices and the potential for meta-gaming in this system.  I may be faced with a situation that I feel requires a pragmatic solution.  I make the decision that I feel follows a pragmatic course  (in expert mode let's say), and am given points in "cruel".  Well, in some situations I might feel that is okay, sometimes the pragmatic choice can be cruel. At other times, I might feel the choice I am making is not cruel and be surprised or disappointed by such a result.  Playing in default mode could be even more problematic as the potentials are being labeled.  this might encourage some to play the answer they feel gives them the correct outcome rather than the choice they would like to for their character.  

The dev's can't stop you from metagaming, that's the players issue not theirs.  Also like Sawyer said in his clarification post... it is tracking your averages and long term actions not one off moments.  So no, making one mean choice is not going to suddenly make everyone think you are the scum of the earth if 90% of the time you are Mr. Nice Guy.  That and there is no "wrong" answer.  I seriously doubt critical game content will be tied to having a certain reputation or disposition. 

 

In alpha protocol for example all that happens is sometimes you could talk your way out of a situation with the right choices, or get some bonus/situational things for upcoming levels or battles.  If it was a key plot fight you still had to go at it regardless of what you did, said, or how you did it, and said it.

[curryinahurry]

 

My only question would be around choices and the potential for meta-gaming in this system.  I may be faced with a situation that I feel requires a pragmatic solution.  I make the decision that I feel follows a pragmatic course  (in expert mode let's say), and am given points in "cruel".  Well, in some situations I might feel that is okay, sometimes the pragmatic choice can be cruel. At other times, I might feel the choice I am making is not cruel and be surprised or disappointed by such a result.  Playing in default mode could be even more problematic as the potentials are being labeled.  this might encourage some to play the answer they feel gives them the correct outcome rather than the choice they would like to for their character.  

The dev's can't stop you from metagaming, that's the players issue not theirs.  Also like Sawyer said in his clarification post... it is tracking your averages and long term actions not one off moments.  So no, making one mean choice is not going to suddenly make everyone think you are the scum of the earth if 90% of the time you are Mr. Nice Guy.  That and there is no "wrong" answer.  I seriously doubt critical game content will be tied to having a certain reputation or disposition. 

 

In alpha protocol for example all that happens is sometimes you could talk your way out of a situation with the right choices, or get some bonus/situational things for upcoming levels or battles.  If it was a key plot fight you still had to go at it regardless of what you did, said, or how you did it, and said it.

 

 

Yes, I understand how the system works, Josh Sawyer's (and your previous post) pretty much cleared that up.  And I definitely like the idea in general.  The concern I have is related to the potentail mis-alignment of developer and user intents.  

 

Certainly a degree of metagaming will always occur, but I disagree with the notion that it is not the dev's concern.  In fact, much of the attempts to address, "degenerate gameplay" by Obsidian have this issue in mind.  

 

Minor misalignments between dev and user will likely not cause any problems, save for those people who feel the must get everything 100% correct to their POV...there is nothing the developer can do about those situations or should try to, I agree.  But if results are frequently different from a player's desired intent with regards to these interactions, he/she might feel that they are being compelled to play the game the way the developer wants them to and not the way they want; which I doubt is Obsidian's intent in implementing this system.  It is a risk, however small, and I am not overly concerned.

Edited November 14, 2013 by curryinahurry

[Sacred_Path]

To be clear, by default any choice that will impact your reputations (personality or otherwise) will be highlighted as such.

v. good.

[PrimeJunta]

:reads through thread:

:notes differences:

 

Funny how the opinions split on this one. I've had a rule of thumb of disliking anything @Karkarov likes and vice versa lately, but seems like he's got his head on straight about this one. And certain people who I generally agree with clearly have very poor taste on this particular point.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I like the sound of it a lot anyway.

[lolaldanee]

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.

now, if you are super cool, you also include responses for people who change their behaviour all the time

kind of a "unreliable" stance

[Karkarov]

:reads through thread:

:notes differences:

 

Funny how the opinions split on this one. I've had a rule of thumb of disliking anything @Karkarov likes and vice versa lately, but seems like he's got his head on straight about this one. And certain people who I generally agree with clearly have very poor taste on this particular point.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I like the sound of it a lot anyway.

Yeah I even found myself agreeing with Stun in another thread.  At that point I had to check my window to make sure the apocalypse hadn't started.

[Malekith]

 

:reads through thread:

:notes differences:

 

Funny how the opinions split on this one. I've had a rule of thumb of disliking anything @Karkarov likes and vice versa lately, but seems like he's got his head on straight about this one. And certain people who I generally agree with clearly have very poor taste on this particular point.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I like the sound of it a lot anyway.

 

Hahaha, me too.  I have even liked two of his posts the last days.    

But i look at it in that way: If both me and Karkarov agree on something, that something is obviously the correct solution, and the people who disagree are wrong.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Malekith

[IndiraLightfoot]

Having been on this forum for awhile, it's clear that there will be converging points of interest and argumentation even among those that seem to disagree the most, and I love that. The obvious common denominators: We all love complex party-based CRPGs with great stories and adventures.

[rjshae]

The main concern I would have with this system is whether your reputation is local or global. If you move to a new locale that doesn't communicate with the prior region, then have a reputation for cruelty or kindness still apply may break my suspension of disbelief. But hopefully that won't be an issue.

[PrimeJunta]

Huh. This turned into a group hug. Imagine that.

[Malekith]

Huh. This turned into a group hug. Imagine that.

Bah. The next update will fix it.

[Infinitron]

The main concern I would have with this system is whether your reputation is local or global. If you move to a new locale that doesn't communicate with the prior region, then have a reputation for cruelty or kindness still apply may break my suspension of disbelief. But hopefully that won't be an issue.

 

Already confirmed that it's global: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506352&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=17#post421820536

 

Yeah. Ultimately it is better for the player (IMO) if those reps are universal so that they are more opportunities for reactivity.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

It should be noted that "global" in this sense is not literally globe-spanning, but within the areas where the game takes place.

[J.E. Sawyer]

A little more on the labels used for each personality type: we need to use a label because it's a helpful abstraction for how the behavior can be characterized, but different characters will interpret that reputation in different ways.  "Clever" can be interpreted as sarcastic, witty, foppish, or irreverent.  "Benevolent" can be interpreted as charitable, kind, soft, or weak.  "Aggressive" can be interpreted as hot-headed, bold, or impatient.  Each of these interpretations has a value judgment associated with it but they are all reactions to similar types of behavior.  One character will look at your "Aggressive" behavior and (negatively) think that you fly off the handle at everything, provoke fights, and cause trouble.  Another character will look at the same "Aggressive" behavior and admire you for taking charge, being decisive, not letting people push you around, etc.

[JFSOCC]

This sounds really cool for those like me who enjoy the role-playing elements of RPG's. I wonder if there is a risk of character stereotyping, especially if the game treats your responses differently than you would. But since you mentioned that outside of expert mode you're informed, I don't think we've got much to worry about.

 

Cool!

[Gfted1]

So the non-expert responses will be flagged (Clever, Benevolent, Aggressive, etc...) but how do we know how the NPC is interpreting it (sarcastic, charitable, hot-headed, etc...)?

[Keyrock]

I'm sold, where do I sign?

[J.E. Sawyer]

So the non-expert responses will be flagged (Clever, Benevolent, Aggressive, etc...) but how do we know how the NPC is interpreting it (sarcastic, charitable, hot-headed, etc...)?

 

You don't know anything about how they will respond ahead of time (outside of your general understanding of the character).

[Lephys]

You do something for your own reasons. Other people react a certain way, regardless of your reasons or whether or not they know them. Welcome to RPGs, my friends.

 

If you do something you don't feel is cruel, but it understandably could be seen as cruel (for example), then it seems as though it was a significant and weighty decision. Which is more important at that moment: Not being regarded as cruel, or accomplishing whatever it is that would mark you in the eyes of some as cruel?

 

I'm not really sure where worrisome levels of meta-gaming come into that. You have two mutually exclusive benefits, and you pick one. Whether you pick one because that's what you would really do in that situation, or pick one because you're trying to get the "best" outcome for your characters (which is STILL determined completely by you) is up to you.

 

As for you petting a kitten, and everyone labeling you "cruel"... I don't see that happening. So, I'm not seeing evidence for concern that developer intent will somehow override or clash with the player experience. The whole point is that they don't intend for you to do a specific thing. They just give you the ingredients, and you decide how to use them.

[Infinitron]

Hey Josh, were you inspired by the Tides or is it just a coincidence?

[teknoman2]

obsidian, puting the RP in the RPG... because most developers took it off and left the G with levels only

[mcmanusaur]

This sounds really cool for those like me who enjoy the role-playing elements of RPG's.

 

The fact that this phrase can exist in a manner that's not redundant makes me sort of sad, but it's true.

 

obsidian, puting the RP in the RPG... because most developers took it off and left the G with levels only

 

Pretty much. Or maybe to give "most developers" a bit more credit, they turn it into a "role-choosing game" in the sense that there are only 2-3 options of narrative consequence.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hey Josh, were you inspired by the Tides or is it just a coincidence?

 

No.  This system is very similar to what we were doing on The Black Hound in 2003.