Negative psychological attributes - Vices

[GhanBuriGhan]

Certainly including vices as attributes that take control away from the player would enforce the player/character distinction, and so would work best when played in an isometric view rather than first person. Additionally, when used in a party game it would be less annoying than if you only control a single character.

That's a very important distinction, though. In the party case it could be fun, because you are still in control of the game (controlling the other characters) while in the single character game you would be left watching a movie for a while. Furthermore your identification with a party is of a different nature than for a single character that is "you" in the game world.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's "taking control away from my character" that I have been arguing against.

Are you ok with mind affecting spells that take control away from your character? Please explain your answer.

So, does Oblivion have vices now? News to me.

I'm sure you know what I meant: Oblivion is a game where most role-playing will take place in your imagination.

But there are different ways to present mechanics and consequences or feedback to the player.

That goes without saying, and I'm not suggesting that every time a vice kicks in, the control should be taken away. However, you don't see losing control as a viable game mechanic. Why? Just curious.

So, when you explore crypts in MW, do you usually run away when bone lords (or whatever they are called) show up? Yes or No will do.

My low level character usually do. ... At higher levels I tend to take revenge for the insult.

But WHY do you run and WHO runs? You, the player, because you don't think that your character is tough enough and will be killed, forcing you to reload and possibly redo a lot of stuff you've already done; or your character because he is simply afraid of the undead? Also, what happened to the fear - not fear of losing, but fear of undead why you come back at higher level? Magically disappears because you - the player - know that there is nothing to worry about now?

Vices are another good RP mechanic that further separates the player from the character, and thus, are a Good Thing (TM).

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

It's "taking control away from my character" that I have been arguing against.

Are you ok with mind affecting spells that take control away from your character? Please explain your answer.

Lets talk a first person game, here, ok? To a degree I am OK with what such spell effects. I don't mind a spell dropping me unconcious, paralyze me, blind me or spin me around so I can't work a straight line, or whatever, all of which take some amount of control from me. I am even "OK" although I wouldn't necessarily consider it fun, if a spell made me flee or automatically fight someone. OK, because its a spell effect, and if I myself would physically be there I would have to do the casters bidding.I would consider it bad gameplay though, because it would make me watch a movie instead of playing a game, so not much fun.
A vice in a first person game should be something that helps you define your character, not something that defines or even plays him for you. I am coming from a "disciplined" P&P background, we took our roleplaying seriously, and there was no need for the DM to role a die and say "you must gamble now". We would do that ourselves.

I'm sure you know what I meant: Oblivion is a game where most role-playing will take place in your imagination.

And I have explained multiple times that thats not how I want vices to be implemented - so why do you keep going on that tangent?

That goes without saying, and I'm not suggesting that every time a vice kicks in, the control should be taken away. However, you don't see losing control as a viable game mechanic. Why? Just curious.

see above. I think in a one character game its a bad mechanic to take control from the player, because at that instant it stops being a game and you reduce the player to a specatator role. I think its much better rolepalying incentive to give the player feedback and affect his gameplay without taking control away completely.

But WHY do you run and WHO runs? You, the player, because you don't think that your character is tough enough and will be killed, forcing you to reload and possibly redo a lot of stuff you've already done; or your character because he is simply afraid of the undead? Also, what happened to the fear - not fear of losing, but fear of undead why you come back at higher level? Magically disappears because you - the player - know that there is nothing to worry about now?

Vices are another good RP mechanic that further separates the player from the character, and thus, are a Good Thing (TM).

We will have to agree to disagree in a first person single player game I do not wnat to be too distnaced. Of course the game has to define my charactes abilities, give me magic abilities and all those things that the my player can do that I can't, but apart from that I want it to be me out there acting my chosen role. It's a more active aproach, but I don't think its less role playing, and it does not have to be all in the imagination - the game can supply feedback, but leave me to decide how I want to react to that feedback. I find that more intellectually stimulating than having the game role everything for me and force my character into certain actions. I hope that explains my position.

 

[Human Shield]

Say a large vice would prevent the solution of a quest, maybe even kill you. How many times are you going to "correctly" roleplay? Or does your character just fade into a all-powerful being (Morrowind)?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Say a large vice would prevent the solution of a quest, maybe even kill you. How many times are you going to "correctly" roleplay? Or does your character just fade into a all-powerful being (Morrowind)?

If it would do that in the main quest, keeping you from solving the game, would you still consider it a well integrated gameplay element? I most likely wouldn't especially if a vice automatism would not allow me to attempt a different route better suited for my character.

That said, I (in Morrowind) did often not complete -, or even, to the extent the game allowed it, deliberately sabotaged quests that my character would consider unfitting. The problem was that MW had too little choices and feedback, so while I found some satisfaction in doing that, a system of incentives and feedback as discussed in this thread would be much, much more satisfying. And finally, if you as a designer really wanted that, you could achieve unsolvable quests or even getting killed by your vices without taking control away - modifiers, and partial interference with your control (decreased vision, movement, etc.) can be quite as effective.

 

[Twinfalls]

I can see both sides of the argument here - increasingly the 'taking control away' will feel problematic to gamers reared on First Person views and more 'you are there' type design. But really, GBG, to discount these ideas off-hand is to ignore some great possibilities.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sorry, didn't have time to reply earlier:

Lets talk a first person game, here, ok?

Why does it matter? Again, just curious.

OK, because its a spell effect, and if I myself would physically be there I would have to do the casters bidding.

So, if you were to have a fear of spiders, and you encounter a huge spider interested in you as a meal, that fear wouldn't affect you? Wouldn't cause you to run away if you can?

I would consider it bad gameplay though, because it would make me watch a movie instead of playing a game, so not much fun.

I see it more as a game reacting to you and your character, because, again, you are the one who made the character, developed him, decided to go into the spider lair or whatever, despite the fear, and without ways to handle that fear (hired help, ranged weapons, an anti-fear potion). You see a restriction, I see a choice & consequences.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I can see both sides of the argument here - increasingly the 'taking control away' will feel problematic to gamers reared on First Person views and more 'you are there' type design. But really, GBG, to discount these ideas off-hand is to ignore some great possibilities.

Well, I have already acknowledged that I can see these ideas work in a party based game, where it is less gameflow disrupting, and where character identification is not really that central. Within certain limits it could be a nice feature there, in the tradition of squabbling and fighting BG NPC's and the ton of "control loss" spells in that game. You have to excuse me for automatically applying the idea to my preferred RPG subgenre, the first person real-time variety.



[quote="VD]So, if you were to have a fear of spiders, and you encounter a huge spider interested in you as a meal, that fear wouldn't affect you? Wouldn't cause you to run away if you can?[/quote]
The fear would affect me, but in game terms I would like to be able to decide if I want to fight it down (it's important enough for my character to grow beyond himself in this situation, because the damsel in distress is behind that arachnid horror, and I imagine him to have a heart of gold and be madly in love beneath his cowardly skin), or to give in to flee. The effects of the panic could be modeled many ways: by visual and audio feedback (screen shaking and fogging, audio of chattering teeth and heavy breathing) and by affecting my stats to reflect that I can hardly hold my sword straight. I would just rather use the situation as a device to incorporate a decision and to write my characters story than to be presented with the facts by the game - "here, that is what you character did".

VD, I made a new topic that sorts of relates to this one, maybe we should continue the discussion there, i tried to explain the philosophy behind it as good as I could.

 

[Imbecile]

OK, because its a spell effect, and if I myself would physically be there I would have to do the casters bidding.

So, if you were to have a fear of spiders, and you encounter a huge spider interested in you as a meal, that fear wouldn't affect you? Wouldn't cause you to run away if you can?

Not that anyone cares, but I'm kinda with GBG on this one. A spell designed to actually take control away from me can be justified, but other than specific examples like this - I'd rather retain some element of control.

Rather than giving up control, I would prefer that you be encouraged to run away if you can . I quite liked Section 8's method of dealing with it.

Encouraging the player to make decisions that fit the character through the games rules makes lots of sense to me.

Yor character is addicted to a drug.
If the character gets withdrawal symptoms he can either:

a) You lose control of him and he makes his way to the nearest stack of the drug, and takes it regardless of ownership.
b) You get progressively worse stat handicaps, until you take a hit of the drug.

The choice and consequences are still there, they are just dealt with in a slightly different way that keeps the player connected with the character.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The fear would affect me, but in game terms I would like to be able to decide if I want to fight it down (it's important enough for my character to grow beyond himself in this situation, because the damsel in distress is behind that arachnid horror, and I imagine him to have a heart of gold and be madly in love beneath his cowardly skin), or to give in to flee.

How can YOU decide that if YOU are not there with that nasty spider feeling fear and nausea? What factors would that decision be based on? And what would you like to decide next? How about you noticed a weak spot and you jump around like in the movies and kill the spider with a massive critical? Would you like to have a critical hit button handy to impress that damsel with your mad skillz?

The effects of the panic could be modeled many ways: by visual and audio feedback (screen shaking and fogging, audio of chattering teeth and heavy breathing) and by affecting my stats to reflect that I can hardly hold my sword straight.

While all that lovely stuff happening, you, the player, can't see straight with all that shaking and chattering, and then the spider gets you while you are trying to navigate the fuck out. Is it really better than forcing your character to run 20 meters to safety ?

VD, I made a new topic that sorts of relates to this one, maybe we should continue the discussion there, i tried to explain the philosophy behind it as good as I could.

Saw that and replied.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

[quote="Vault DwellerHow can YOU decide that if YOU are not there with that nasty spider feeling fear and nausea? What factors would that decision be based on? And what would you like to decide next? How about you noticed a weak spot and you jump around like in the movies and kill the spider with a massive critical? Would you like to have a critical hit button handy to impress that damsel with your mad skillz?[/quote]

Demagogue! No, I don't want the game to accomodate my every whim, there has to be consistency. I believe though that fear is an effect that you can't control, but that the action you take against or because of fear should be in the real thats decided by the player, just as moral decision should ultimately be, with character traits nudging you in the direction that fits your character.

The effects of the panic could be modeled many ways: by visual and audio feedback (screen shaking and fogging, audio of chattering teeth and heavy breathing) and by affecting my stats to reflect that I can hardly hold my sword straight.

While all that lovely stuff happening, you, the player, can't see straight with all that shaking and chattering, and then the spider gets you while you are trying to navigate the fuck out. Is it really better than forcing your character to run 20 meters to safety ?

Why yes! It would feel more natural, and allow me to remain in the game more.