Alex
Arcane
Hey there people! I am splitting this thread from this one, as I began to post something a little derailing there. I was trying to reply to Excommunicator's comment:
I am not sure I agree with what Excommunicator said, in particular, I think the bolded phrase is wrong. Let me rephrase it: "Game mechanics dependent on intent and motive never work, and should never be put in a game". First, I want to say I agree with this, as long as we are talking about player intent. I mean, designers obviously will assume some things about the player intent, such as assuming he intends to play an RPG of the kind he created. But that is where it ends. In fact, trying to psychoanalyze the player in the game sounds so hopeless it never went through my head when responding to Excommunicator. So, I won't be arguing about this, and ask that anyone wanting to argue about that do so in another thread.
So, what exactly am I arguing about? I am arguing that these might be true: "It is possible to let the player express to the game what he wants to be his character's thoughts are and make the game more immersive at the same time." and "By using what the player defined about his character feelings and objectives, the game can focus on that, giving the player an ability to customize the story that would be impossible (or at least very awkward) otherwise".
So, let's start not by these statements, but what I mean by character and player objectives. When a someone is playing an RPG, he might be in various different frames of mind. For example, he might be trying to exploit the game, making his choices according a what he believes will yield best benefits, he might be playing leisurely, without much pre-planning, taking choices that seem interesting. Also, he might be playing himself, taking the choices he sees himself doing in that situation, or maybe he is playing according to a pre-defined persona he came up. These mind frames will determine player intention (which we won't concern ourselves much in this post).
On the other hand, The PC's thoughts are something else... maybe. Usually, the game doesn't keep track of what the PCs thoughts and feelings might be, letting the player's imagination keep track of this, if he wants. Possibly, there is no such thing as the PC's thoughts, as the player doesn't bother thinking up what might be happening in his PC's head. Probably, the player has a mental picture of his PC, but a rather hazy one. This post is all about defining, inside the game, rather than the player's thoughts, what is going inside the PC's psyche and allowing that to have some kind of effect in the game. One important point here is that we shouldn't take away the player's ability to decide what his PC thinks, though we could add some restrictions or prohibit illogical behavior.
Now, on to the first phrase. I believe that "It is possible to let the player express to the game what he wants to be his character's thoughts are and make the game more immersive at the same time". The most obvious implementation of this would be simply let the player pick his PC's intentions and plans when he makes a choice. Examples of games that already did this were Planescape: Torment (usually by allowing the PC to either lie or not in dialogue) and Alter Ego (where the player can choose his character's mood for each action he takes). While this worked well enough in these games, I don't know if it is desirable or realistic to use this kind of input however. Planescape worked because it was solely concerned with alignment changes and Alter Ego worked because of the granularity of its actions.
Instead, I think it would be more worthwhile to use other, more indirect ways of determining the PC's mind. Basically, I am talking of putting the PC on the spotlight and letting the player choose his thoughts. I think that doing this would not only be more entertaining and immersive, but also would allow the game to focus on what it wants to know about the PC. Funnily enough, Planescape: Torment already did this too. For example:
or when
I thought that Planescape was a better game for those moments, that letting me choose what was in TNO's head and declare it in some way made the narrative better. My thoughts are that it would be worthwhile to provide similar situations in an RPG (whether it is a dream sequence, a Hamlet style soliloquy, an argument with the PC's own conscience, etc) in order to get the PC's stance toward important points in the story. Heck, I think this would be worth it even if the information simply wasn't used (like is the case in PS:T).
So, now all is left to argue s how this information could be used, or "By using what the player defined about his character feelings and objectives, the game can focus on that, giving the player an ability to customize the story that would be impossible (or at least very awkward) otherwise". There are many P&P games that make use of this kind of information. The way to get and use this information varies from game to game, but one almost universal aspect it that the GM should take this into consideration when creating his scenarios. If a player puts in his character sheet that his character is bitter, and he is acting bitter towards someone specific, it is a clear indication that the player wants to explore that side of his PC with the character he is acting bitter towards to. In a P&P game, the GM is then responsible for creating situations that allow such explorations.
In a CRPG, we are much more limited. Even if we have some system to generate a non-linear story, the specific interesting interactions need to be though of beforehand. However, while we can't allow the player as much freedom as in a P&P game, we can still allow some! If a game is simply designed to take into consideration a few possibilities about the PC's mind at each point, for example changing its plot a little to better fit the PC, I think we can get something very good already!
By the way, if you have any doubts, feel free to ask. If you people are interested, I can write an extended example of how I see this being used, though not this weekend. I wrote this because I think I wasn't able to express myself clearly in the other thread, so this is here. I really hope this is more readable.
Bolding mine.Excommunicator said:Okay, I understand where you are both coming from in terms of the roleplaying limitations idea, and I would mostly agree, except if there is an in-world explanation for why those powers are being taken away/restricted/limited/changed then I would accept that as part of the game, even if I preferred the alternative or thought it was a bad design decision.
But that is where it ends. The moment the designer starts working on a system that expects me to live according to rules or restrictions that they have not written into the setting and given a reasonable explanation for why the game is behaving that way then I don't accept it (e.g. acceptable would be omniscient god denying the powers due to the player having done something against god's wishes/principles or a government agent who actively sought out certain people to murder them when they were told not to do so, and having their gun taken away for a period of time). Of course, these things are reactions to undeniable facts in the game world and not intentions or motives being considered, and in the second example, if the game later prevented the character from picking up or using a gun found elsewhere (instead of providing consequences for doing so) then I would have a very big problem problem with that.
I also agree on all the disagreement with mechanics based generally around intent and motive. Such considerations never work, and should never be put in a game. Although, at times it is possible to eliminate all other possibilities in an isolated situation so that the intent behind a player action can be essentially known, e.g. if the king stays the whole game only in the the castle full of guards, even with a scripted assassination attempt later in the game, the game can know for certain if the player is behaving badly or with bad intent due to all other explanations being impossible (enemies simply can't get past the guards, there is no reasonable explanation for a sword being swung in the presence of the king, and the king would not be initiating any violence of his own). Those sorts of situations can have the possibilities ruled out, and when done properly it can quite easily approximate the motives of the player and react to them effectively.
From that basis we can then put in all sorts of consequences like charges for attempted assassination or expulsion from the castle or a death warrant, but only in-world explanations. Secretly take away 100xp every time such a situation is detected by the game and I would be very annoyed.
I am not sure I agree with what Excommunicator said, in particular, I think the bolded phrase is wrong. Let me rephrase it: "Game mechanics dependent on intent and motive never work, and should never be put in a game". First, I want to say I agree with this, as long as we are talking about player intent. I mean, designers obviously will assume some things about the player intent, such as assuming he intends to play an RPG of the kind he created. But that is where it ends. In fact, trying to psychoanalyze the player in the game sounds so hopeless it never went through my head when responding to Excommunicator. So, I won't be arguing about this, and ask that anyone wanting to argue about that do so in another thread.
So, what exactly am I arguing about? I am arguing that these might be true: "It is possible to let the player express to the game what he wants to be his character's thoughts are and make the game more immersive at the same time." and "By using what the player defined about his character feelings and objectives, the game can focus on that, giving the player an ability to customize the story that would be impossible (or at least very awkward) otherwise".
So, let's start not by these statements, but what I mean by character and player objectives. When a someone is playing an RPG, he might be in various different frames of mind. For example, he might be trying to exploit the game, making his choices according a what he believes will yield best benefits, he might be playing leisurely, without much pre-planning, taking choices that seem interesting. Also, he might be playing himself, taking the choices he sees himself doing in that situation, or maybe he is playing according to a pre-defined persona he came up. These mind frames will determine player intention (which we won't concern ourselves much in this post).
On the other hand, The PC's thoughts are something else... maybe. Usually, the game doesn't keep track of what the PCs thoughts and feelings might be, letting the player's imagination keep track of this, if he wants. Possibly, there is no such thing as the PC's thoughts, as the player doesn't bother thinking up what might be happening in his PC's head. Probably, the player has a mental picture of his PC, but a rather hazy one. This post is all about defining, inside the game, rather than the player's thoughts, what is going inside the PC's psyche and allowing that to have some kind of effect in the game. One important point here is that we shouldn't take away the player's ability to decide what his PC thinks, though we could add some restrictions or prohibit illogical behavior.
Now, on to the first phrase. I believe that "It is possible to let the player express to the game what he wants to be his character's thoughts are and make the game more immersive at the same time". The most obvious implementation of this would be simply let the player pick his PC's intentions and plans when he makes a choice. Examples of games that already did this were Planescape: Torment (usually by allowing the PC to either lie or not in dialogue) and Alter Ego (where the player can choose his character's mood for each action he takes). While this worked well enough in these games, I don't know if it is desirable or realistic to use this kind of input however. Planescape worked because it was solely concerned with alignment changes and Alter Ego worked because of the granularity of its actions.
Instead, I think it would be more worthwhile to use other, more indirect ways of determining the PC's mind. Basically, I am talking of putting the PC on the spotlight and letting the player choose his thoughts. I think that doing this would not only be more entertaining and immersive, but also would allow the game to focus on what it wants to know about the PC. Funnily enough, Planescape: Torment already did this too. For example:
When Fall From Grace (I think) interrupts TNO to ask him what are his thoughts about his own situation.
or when
The Nameless One must choose a regret to enter the fortress of regrets.
I thought that Planescape was a better game for those moments, that letting me choose what was in TNO's head and declare it in some way made the narrative better. My thoughts are that it would be worthwhile to provide similar situations in an RPG (whether it is a dream sequence, a Hamlet style soliloquy, an argument with the PC's own conscience, etc) in order to get the PC's stance toward important points in the story. Heck, I think this would be worth it even if the information simply wasn't used (like is the case in PS:T).
So, now all is left to argue s how this information could be used, or "By using what the player defined about his character feelings and objectives, the game can focus on that, giving the player an ability to customize the story that would be impossible (or at least very awkward) otherwise". There are many P&P games that make use of this kind of information. The way to get and use this information varies from game to game, but one almost universal aspect it that the GM should take this into consideration when creating his scenarios. If a player puts in his character sheet that his character is bitter, and he is acting bitter towards someone specific, it is a clear indication that the player wants to explore that side of his PC with the character he is acting bitter towards to. In a P&P game, the GM is then responsible for creating situations that allow such explorations.
In a CRPG, we are much more limited. Even if we have some system to generate a non-linear story, the specific interesting interactions need to be though of beforehand. However, while we can't allow the player as much freedom as in a P&P game, we can still allow some! If a game is simply designed to take into consideration a few possibilities about the PC's mind at each point, for example changing its plot a little to better fit the PC, I think we can get something very good already!
By the way, if you have any doubts, feel free to ask. If you people are interested, I can write an extended example of how I see this being used, though not this weekend. I wrote this because I think I wasn't able to express myself clearly in the other thread, so this is here. I really hope this is more readable.