Randomizing C&C.

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Absolutely nothing needs to be clear to the player.

The details do not need to be clear, but the factor that causes randomness needs to be pinpointed.

Well, for example in different play-throughs NPCs motivation may be different, his problems may be different and solutions to them may be different. Therefore consequences of choices would be different.

 

[SuicideBunny]

In the end, the same gameplay mechanic is reached

no, it isn't.
causality implies the ability to find out the cause, understand it, and make an informed decision or influence circumstances to your favor.
in a fully emulated system you can affect the chain of causality at any level, even if the consequences aren't fully clear to you due to the chaotic nature of the system, and you end up with a causality sandbox that draws you in (hmm, ok, i changed that and that and that happened, if i change that, maybe that and that will happen instead).
randomized outcomes essentially force the player into learned helplessness or reliance on outside information sources, and i don't see how that is a good thing.

if you want to randomize c&c, randomize the starting conditions instead of the outcome, and still give players the ability to gather information on the situation based on their characters' stats.

btw, that shadowrun example is überfail in terms of c&c. only marginally better than entirely fake jrpg choices.

 

[BearBomber]

It doesn't add anything meaningful to the gameplay. Without that system he player has to think about consequences, because his choice has the impact on the result. With that system he may just click whatever he wants, because it depends only on pure luck.

 

[KalosKagathos]

The cause of events is abstracted. If someone happens that the player didn't intend or directly cause, it is inferred that it was caused by the actions of other characters in the game.

But what causes these characters to act in a different way even if the situation stays the same?

Well, for example in different play-throughs NPCs motivation may be different, his problems may be different and solutions to them may be different. Therefore consequences of choices would be different.

Different motivation = different character.

 

[Unradscorpion]

Most of this can be achieved by delayed consequences, it's a pretty stupid idea.
Although in the beggar case it's sort of okay, since it's just a small encounter.

It would be great if the vampire was an easy enemy, but if he bit anyone he would turn into a vampire half a game later without any warning of it happening unless you have good lore skill.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

In the end, the same gameplay mechanic is reached

no, it isn't.
causality implies the ability to find out the cause, understand it, and make an informed decision or influence circumstances to your favor.

Absolutely not. We know our world obeys causality. Yet we have no way at all of predicting the future, because we are not omniscient. If something works out different on one play through even if the player takes the same actions, then it is implied that the other characters in the game took different actions that caused the change.

randomized outcomes essentially force the player into learned helplessness or reliance on outside information sources, and i don't see how that is a good thing.

Not talking about totally randomized outcomes. If a player helps a faction, they will generally do better. If a player helps a character, they will become more trusting and less likely to backstab the player.

if you want to randomize c&c, randomize the starting conditions instead of the outcome, and still give players the ability to gather information on the situation based on their characters' stats.

In a way, this is what we are doing. We aren't randomizing things like character locations or faction powers. We're randomizing the character's psyche a bit.

The cause of events is abstracted. If someone happens that the player didn't intend or directly cause, it is inferred that it was caused by the actions of other characters in the game.

But what causes these characters to act in a different way even if the situation stays the same?
Different motivation = different character.

The implication is that characters will never react exactly the same way in different playthroughs.

 

[DraQ]

no, it isn't.
causality implies the ability to find out the cause, understand it, and make an informed decision or influence circumstances to your favor.
in a fully emulated system you can affect the chain of causality at any level, even if the consequences aren't fully clear to you due to the chaotic nature of the system, and you end up with a causality sandbox that draws you in (hmm, ok, i changed that and that and that happened, if i change that, maybe that and that will happen instead).
randomized outcomes essentially force the player into learned helplessness or reliance on outside information sources, and i don't see how that is a good thing.

if you want to randomize c&c, randomize the starting conditions instead of the outcome, and still give players the ability to gather information on the situation based on their characters' stats.

Do you intend to simulate things like an important NPC getting bitten by a flea or having an indigestion justifying his bad mood as well?

Because an RPG will necessarily have limited depth of simulation, and while I'm more than enthusiastic when it comes to "pushing the envelope" (lolbuzzword) in regards to this depth, you just can't simulate everything, and simpler, non-deterministic system governed by statistical rules can be an excellent simulation of a behaviour of a more complex, deterministic one.

It doesn't add anything meaningful to the gameplay. Without that system he player has to think about consequences, because his choice has the impact on the result. With that system he may just click whatever he wants, because it depends only on pure luck.

There is no difference between being careful when crossing the road and rushing blindly into the traffic, because careful people do get killed in accidents too and it's not like running into the traffic like a total moron is always concluded with a roadkill. Herp. Derp.

Do you feel the same about all the dice rolls in RPGs as well?
They too preclude any informed decision according to your logic.

Ok, I know that being stupid is not a capital offence (and won't be as long as I don't have the necessary power to make it capital offence ), but could you please go be dumb somewhere else?
This is the , after all.

Absolutely not. We know our world obeys causality.

Technically we do not and quite some quirky aspects (which are not just statistical randomness) of certain quantum mechanical phenomena suggests otherwise.

Yet we have no way at all of predicting the future, because we are not omniscient. If something works out different on one play through even if the player takes the same actions, then it is implied that the other characters in the game took different actions that caused the change.

Or that some other random factor interfered.
This.

In a way, this is what we are doing. We aren't randomizing things like character locations or faction powers.

And why not, exactly?

Quite a lot of stuff can be randomized to a varying degree without making player helpless as long as other parts of game adapt. Unique player experience = good.