The Problems with Good-Playthrough in Many RPGs... Your Thoughts?

[NecroLord]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

Aksually, story matters in some RPG too, it's not just about the battle or luck of the dice.
If you do stupid shit, you should get punished for it.

In fact this also covers gameplay, if you purposely make a shit build, you should be crapped at whatever you are trying to do, and not rewarded because muh balance.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

Aksually, story matters in some RPG too, it's not just about the battle or luck of the dice.
If you do stupid shit, you should get punished for it.

In fact this also covers gameplay, if you purposely make a shit build, you should be crapped at whatever you are trying to do, and not rewarded because muh balance.

story should always stay subservient to gameplay, merely a pretence for battles and dice rolling. if you accept primacy of the story and allow it to punish you for picking the 'wrong' option as envisioned by the designer, you've resigned yourself to playing a CYOA, most likely of middling quality.

your other argument's falling on deaf ears, because I'm old enough to remember nobody bothering to balance games.

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

Aksually, story matters in some RPG too, it's not just about the battle or luck of the dice.
If you do stupid shit, you should get punished for it.

In fact this also covers gameplay, if you purposely make a shit build, you should be crapped at whatever you are trying to do, and not rewarded because muh balance.

story should always stay subservient to gameplay, merely a pretence for battles and dice rolling. if you accept primacy of the story and allow it to punish you for picking the 'wrong' option as envisioned by the designer, you've resigned yourself to playing a CYOA, most likely of middling quality.

your other argument's falling on deaf ears, because I'm old enough to remember nobody bothering to balance games.

Not in RPG, where choices and consequences play a part in the gameplay.

If the gameplay has nothing to do with the story, it even makes the game lamer because you know they are just winking at both parts.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Maxie is correct. The point of the game is to be a game--a toy. It's not an exhortation. That said, you're both making the same argument. I don't think Rehorror was saying the treachery would be automatic loss for the unarmed player, just significantly more difficult than had the player made a better choice. Possibly difficult to the point of that scenario being unwinnable for the player.

 

[REhorror]

Maxie is correct. The point of the game is to be a game--a toy. It's not an exhortation. That said, you're both making the same argument. I don't think Rehorror was saying the treachery would be automatic loss for the unarmed player, just significantly more difficult than had the player made a better choice. That difficultly might even result in the scenario being unwinnable for the player.

A toy, or whatever else, can be used to challenge the player.

A child gets easily bored by a toy if it does anything it wants. This is why Rubic cube and or even kiddie chess and games manage to hold the child's attention.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

Aksually, story matters in some RPG too, it's not just about the battle or luck of the dice.
If you do stupid shit, you should get punished for it.

In fact this also covers gameplay, if you purposely make a shit build, you should be crapped at whatever you are trying to do, and not rewarded because muh balance.

story should always stay subservient to gameplay, merely a pretence for battles and dice rolling. if you accept primacy of the story and allow it to punish you for picking the 'wrong' option as envisioned by the designer, you've resigned yourself to playing a CYOA, most likely of middling quality.

your other argument's falling on deaf ears, because I'm old enough to remember nobody bothering to balance games.

Not in RPG, where choices and consequences play a part in the gameplay.

If the gameplay has nothing to do with the story, it even makes the game lamer because you know they are just winking at both parts.

choices & consequences understood as story bends is a problematic hot take i've put some effort into banishing from this shithole website, to no avail.

to me, c&c is far more important on character creation level, and the fact that out of a number of possible options envisioned by the system you do choose these or that is precisely the actual, tangible c&c that makes rpgs fun. c&c being a stupid dogwhistle for quests having multiple resolutions is the most incelian take perpetuated around here.

 

[Bastardchops]

I think this is a general rule - someone who has a real life and real responsibilities will never become a communist.

You might want to read the history. A plenty of people who "had a real life" and "real responsibilities" became communists. Thing is, there is a giant gap between the idea of communism and how it was implemented in practice. A lot of people bought the idea and they didn't really have decent alternatives to it, hence the rise of communism world-wide. It was only after the reality kicked in people who lived in communist states started wishing for communism to be gone.

I strongly disagree. There is no communist who is fully committed to real life. There were people forced to work by circumstances, but for them it was just a stopover (or a sad necessity if they failed to make a revolution). The only "work" of a communist is revolutionary struggle.

Marx? A lazy philosopher.
Lenin? Haunted aristocrat.
Stalin? Bandit and a bad poet.
Che? He never wanted to be a doctor.
Mao? The son of a rich peasant who didn't want to work.
Kim Il-sung? Professional revolutionary.
Fidel? Same.

In other words a bunch of lazy sociopaths.

 

[Maxie]

Maxie is correct. The point of the game is to be a game--a toy. It's not an exhortation. That said, you're both making the same argument. I don't think Rehorror was saying the treachery would be automatic loss for the unarmed player, just significantly more difficult than had the player made a better choice. That difficultly might even result in the scenario being unwinnable for the player.

A toy, or whatever else, can be used to challenge the player.

A child gets easily bored by a toy if it does anything it wants. This is why Rubic cube and or even kiddie chess and games manage to hold the child's attention.

there is no challenge involved in picking whatever route the designer has decided to randomly choose as the one in which the game does not shit on you. it takes foreknowledge only.

 

[REhorror]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

Aksually, story matters in some RPG too, it's not just about the battle or luck of the dice.
If you do stupid shit, you should get punished for it.

In fact this also covers gameplay, if you purposely make a shit build, you should be crapped at whatever you are trying to do, and not rewarded because muh balance.

story should always stay subservient to gameplay, merely a pretence for battles and dice rolling. if you accept primacy of the story and allow it to punish you for picking the 'wrong' option as envisioned by the designer, you've resigned yourself to playing a CYOA, most likely of middling quality.

your other argument's falling on deaf ears, because I'm old enough to remember nobody bothering to balance games.

Not in RPG, where choices and consequences play a part in the gameplay.

If the gameplay has nothing to do with the story, it even makes the game lamer because you know they are just winking at both parts.

choices & consequences understood as story bends is a problematic hot take i've put some effort into banishing from this shithole website, to no avail.

to me, c&c is far more important on character creation level, and the fact that out of a number of possible options envisioned by the system you do choose these or that is precisely the actual, tangible c&c that makes rpgs fun. c&c being a stupid dogwhistle for quests having multiple resolutions is the most incelian take perpetuated around here.

Naw, again, this is just you in denial.

Even JRPG makes note of this, so their scenario is not written so that your MC is too stupid, and they still get Game-over by choosing the wrong things sometimes (like engaging a boss way above their levels).

This new design of must-be-balanced, "fair" (as in the player is NEVER ever challenged) is fucking stupid for a video game where half of the fun is about being surprised.

 

[REhorror]

Maxie is correct. The point of the game is to be a game--a toy. It's not an exhortation. That said, you're both making the same argument. I don't think Rehorror was saying the treachery would be automatic loss for the unarmed player, just significantly more difficult than had the player made a better choice. That difficultly might even result in the scenario being unwinnable for the player.

A toy, or whatever else, can be used to challenge the player.

A child gets easily bored by a toy if it does anything it wants. This is why Rubic cube and or even kiddie chess and games manage to hold the child's attention.

there is no challenge involved in picking whatever route the designer has decided to randomly choose as the one in which the game does not shit on you. it takes foreknowledge only.

Does it take foreknowledge to NOT blindly trust your enemy?
No, it takes basic thinking.

And again, you can just reload and try it over, except the ones stupid enough to do it learn a valuable lesson of NOT doing whatever your enemy tells you to.

 

[Maxie]

This thread makes me realize how rare this type of RPGs are. I'm referring to the type of RPGS that make good' moral choices more punishing/demanding mechanically but more rewarding narratively and vice versa for the 'bad' ones. Aside from Pathological, Mask of the Betrayer and Rogue Trader I can't think of any other examples. Every time a game does this it makes both choices more satisfying and often met with critical acclaim here on the codex at least.

Btw, just finished Wasteland 2, I like that there is one area - titan canyon - whose problem is not easy to resolve in a moral way (if a good outcome even exist), and the morally good choice is not the most obvious choice, in fact the choice that appears to be harmful short-term - disarm the nuke and eliminate both factions that vying for control the canyon, as a result, the area lost any semblance of order left and become really unsafe for traders to pass through - is actually good long-term - the rangers can come to the area later and restore order there without charging a high toll or blow up the canyon like what the previous 2 factions would do - and vice versa, wish more RPGs do this, because it forces players to use their brain if they want to leave some positive impact on the game world instead of just choosing the supposedly-nicest option available like a brainless goody-two-shoes.

Can you guys recommend to me other games that make you work and think harder when trying to do good like the examples above? I know RPGs are supposed to be a form of escapism for many, but I personally wouldn't mind if more RPG devs become less averse to making the good playthrough in their game more complex and difficult like real life - in real life, most of the time, you don't get parades and magic swords for doing the right thing, and its not always easy - in lieu of the usual power fantasy crap. What about you?

The problem lies in your mind only. Video games are heroic stories of an underdog's struggle, rags to riches etc., and as such have no business promoting anything else than heroism, kindness, and optimism.

Or in other words... stupid shit that the author/writers approve of.

If I make a RPG some days, you can bet I will put in a beggar where they ask for all your shit, and you have the option to give it all.
But you will get nothing out of it, save for an achievement to prove how stupid you are.

This reminds me of Gaenor from Morrowind.
He is a "pauper" who will keep asking you for money up to the sum of 1.000.000 gold.
If you have this sum and offer to give it to him, he will fly into a rage and accuse you of mocking him - "Do you really think I'm that stupid? No one walks around with a million gold on them; that's ludicrous! I won't stand for this kind of patronizing! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!
I think the Bethesda devs put it there just to see if the players are stupid enough to fall for it...

Have to give Bethesda props for that.

Still, there should be smarter choices and consequences where you are punished for being Lawful stupid, like the enemy general invites you to come without weapons, you accept and get killed easily for it.

for what reason?

To warn the players to not blindly trust people and do stupid shit.

in a video game? what you do is make the combat encounter more challenging, not kill off the player because you want to impose your edgy sensibilities on people.

LOL what? And no, blindly trusting your enemies and get backstabbed for it isn't edgy, it's a good lesson for everyone.

kid, you seem to have a hard on for some nebulous grimdank edge nonsense and consequently prattle on how player should be 'punished' for 'gullibility,' what's fun in such a game?

Oh wow, you do stupid shit and get punished for it is "grimdark edge nonsense" now.

Nope, I stand by my point. You are the exact thing I spoke against, you are encouraging the player to be stupid and have a get out of jail free-card.

yeah, getting a get out of jail free card should be a given in video games, because you're playing a hero and engage in heroics, have your ups and downs, and ambushes are not unheard of. pardon in case you missed my question;

what's fun in the type of game you posit?

The fun in the game treats you like an vulnerable party to the game's world, where you have to think and act accordingly, and not the lord & saviour who graces the world by your presence i.e. a Mary Sue.

And no, having a get out of jail free-card destroys any kind of matter of pressure or challenge (which are FUN), you know it's an "adventure" where it sucks your dick for existing.

pressure and challenge are perfectly fine and i'd be the last person to argue against them. i am however adamantly against the game trying to assume some sombre moral high ground and look down on you for daring to want to engage in heroics. you are, by definition, not a vulnerable party, but an adventuring party, often the lord & saviour of the world as you yourself have put it. player characters are not NPCs, and should not be treated with the type of logic that applies to NPCs.

This is not about "moral high ground", this is about being stupid or smart.

When the player gets out of jail for free, or does stupid shit like the above (trust the enemy general to NOT kill you without weapons), then the universe doesn't matter, the challenges don't matter, because everyone is stupid but you (you are too, but the universe saves your ass every times)..

being stupid or smart in an RPG refers to the type of tactics you assume using the party you've created, and does not refer to engaging with the world at all. there's a reason why our ancestors 6000 years ago rolled dice for everything - because everything is fair game, if you're good enough and have some luck. which translates in video games into being always given a chance to succeed, however slim. a designer who denies you that isn't smart, he's a bumbling faggot who's bad at designing games.

Aksually, story matters in some RPG too, it's not just about the battle or luck of the dice.
If you do stupid shit, you should get punished for it.

In fact this also covers gameplay, if you purposely make a shit build, you should be crapped at whatever you are trying to do, and not rewarded because muh balance.

story should always stay subservient to gameplay, merely a pretence for battles and dice rolling. if you accept primacy of the story and allow it to punish you for picking the 'wrong' option as envisioned by the designer, you've resigned yourself to playing a CYOA, most likely of middling quality.

your other argument's falling on deaf ears, because I'm old enough to remember nobody bothering to balance games.

Not in RPG, where choices and consequences play a part in the gameplay.

If the gameplay has nothing to do with the story, it even makes the game lamer because you know they are just winking at both parts.

choices & consequences understood as story bends is a problematic hot take i've put some effort into banishing from this shithole website, to no avail.

to me, c&c is far more important on character creation level, and the fact that out of a number of possible options envisioned by the system you do choose these or that is precisely the actual, tangible c&c that makes rpgs fun. c&c being a stupid dogwhistle for quests having multiple resolutions is the most incelian take perpetuated around here.

Naw, again, this is just you in denial.

Even JRPG makes note of this, so their scenario is not written so that your MC is too stupid, and they still get Game-over by choosing the wrong things sometimes (like engaging a boss way above their levels).

This new design of must-be-balanced, "fair" (as in the player is NEVER ever challenged) is fucking stupid for a video game where half of the fun is about being surprised.

you're arguing against the creation of your own mind, conjured up in my lieu, I assume because you've failed to grasp my point.

 

[Maxie]

Maxie is correct. The point of the game is to be a game--a toy. It's not an exhortation. That said, you're both making the same argument. I don't think Rehorror was saying the treachery would be automatic loss for the unarmed player, just significantly more difficult than had the player made a better choice. That difficultly might even result in the scenario being unwinnable for the player.

A toy, or whatever else, can be used to challenge the player.

A child gets easily bored by a toy if it does anything it wants. This is why Rubic cube and or even kiddie chess and games manage to hold the child's attention.

there is no challenge involved in picking whatever route the designer has decided to randomly choose as the one in which the game does not shit on you. it takes foreknowledge only.

Does it take foreknowledge to NOT blindly trust your enemy?
No, it takes basic thinking.

And again, you can just reload and try it over, except the ones stupid enough to do it learn a valuable lesson of NOT doing whatever your enemy tells you to.

it takes gamer acumen to recognize that blindly trusting your enemy lets you inside their camp for higher challenge and, potentially, better loot. being denied that is anti-games.