The three levels of choice-making in an RPG

[Infinitron]

There are three types of choices a player is typically called upon to make in an RPG:

1) Non-character build dependent choices. Choices that have nothing to do with stats or anything "RPGish". For example, choosing whether to side with faction A or faction B.

2) Non-exclusive character build dependent choices. Choices that depend on your stats, but which in a typical playthrough, allow you more than option. For example, as a charismatic thief, choosing whether to use your Lockpick skill to open a door, or your Diplomacy skill to convince somebody to give you the key. In a party-based game, these skills might correspond to different characters in your party.

3) Exclusive character build dependent choices. Choices that depend on your stats, and which are typically the only choice you can make, because that's all your character can do. In a sense, these aren't "choices" at all and your character was "destined" via his build to select that one specific option he's capable of doing. But they are choices in the higher sense that you chose to build your character that way.

A common variant is 3a) Exclusive character build dependent choices PLUS COMBAT, where your character can either select the one option available to his build, or (if he doesn't even have that, or if he wants to) choose to fight a battle instead to get past that obstacle.

So the question is, which of these types of choices is more monocled or more "RPGish"? Maybe all of them are okay? When should they be used? Which do you prefer? Discuss!

 

[V_K]

I'm not sure I get the difference between 2 and 3. If you have high lockpick and low diplomacy you're also kinda "destined" to choose the former. Even if it's ADnD where you have to choose thief class at generation to have the lockpick skill, it's just the different (more rigid) kind of character system, not the different kind of choice.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure I get the difference between 2 and 3. If you have high lockpick and low diplomacy you're also kinda "destined" to choose the former. Even if it's ADnD where you have to choose thief class at generation to have the lockpick skill, it's just the different (more rigid) kind of character system, not the different kind of choice.

Typical playthrough. For example, the skill thresholds in instances of case 3) might be particularly high, such that your character would almost certainly not be able to excel at more than one.

 

[DragoFireheart]

The three levels of choice-making in an RPG

1. Yes I will continue main storyline / Exit conversation.
2. Path A -> B or Path B -> A
3. Red/Green/Blue ending.

 

[Kz3r0]

The real problem is choices out of character, should they be considered moronic or allowed in for the sake of a true RPG experience, and by allowed I mean viable, so, no game over or excessive punishment.
In essence, how is possible to let players experiment without going to easy on them, and how is possible to make stats count without being so rigid that everything practically become railroaded?

 

[DragoFireheart]

In essence, how is possible to let players experiment without going to easy on them, and how is possible to make stats count without being so rigid that everything practically become railroaded?

Multiple save files.

 

[Abelian]

Similar to 3a), there is 2a), Non-exclusive character build dependent choices with combat. To use the key example, you can just kill the person holding the key.

I don't think any one of them is inherently superior to the others. For example, 1) is great for allowing the player to make choices relating to alignment, whereas the others relate more to character mechanics.

 

[tuluse]

How would you classify a choice based on some kind of stat or attribute earned through previous play? For example, you make a independent choice like supporting faction A. That gives you reputation points with them. Those rep points lead to another available option at a later choice.

How would you classify a choice based on gear your have equipped or an item you character has in his or her inventory?

 

[Infinitron]

How would you classify a choice based on some kind of stat or attribute earned through previous play? For example, you make a independent choice like supporting faction A. That gives you reputation points with them. Those rep points lead to another available option at a later choice.

Obviously things get complex if you start considering dependencies and cascading choices and such. For the purposes of this post, I'd rather think about the "immediate" criteria for making a choice, and not about what lead you to even having that choice. I suppose that something like "accumulating reputation points" could be considered equivalent to character building, but it's not critical to this discussion, I think.

 

[tuluse]

Obviously things get complex if you start considering dependencies and cascading choices and such. For the purposes of this post, I'd rather think about the "immediate" criteria for making a choice, and not about what lead you to even having that choice. I suppose that something like "accumulating reputation points" could be considered equivalent to character building, but it's not critical to this discussion, I think.

It seems very different from character generation stats to me. You're earning those stats through gameplay, not just picking things on a screen.

Something like child killer in Fallout is wholly gameplay made and leads to much different experience.

It removes the entire "destiny" part of the description from your post.

 

[Infinitron]

Sure. It depends on the game - some sort of Darklandsesque procedural sandbox might let you accumulate reputation as part of a "context free" process of character development. I suppose that's usually not the case. As I said, not critical.

 

[Zed]

There are more dimensions to choices than underlying mechanics. Context and amount of choices, short/long-term implications, relation to other systems (reputation, experience gain, quests), frequency, and more. These all play a part in what sort of choices I prefer. Add to that: I haven't really played all combinations of gameplay and choice structures, so I can't really say I know for sure I prefer X over Y.

That said, I really like stat-based choices with meaningful consequences for single character games. It adds to the feeling of CYOA, while putting your character's traits in focus.
I don't think the same approach works as well for party-based games. Instead of playing "yourself", you're instead the "invisible leader" of a group. It's more management and less role-playing.

 

[Duraframe300]

1. Conversational choices
2. Mechanical Choices
3. Choices expressed through interaction? (Like drawing a gun/sword in a crowded place)

All of those may interact with each other.

Wait what are we doing here again?

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

What's an RPG?

 

[tuluse]

Sure. It depends on the context, some sort of Darklandsesque procedural sandbox might let you accumulate reputation as part of a "context free" process of character development. I suppose that's usually not the case. As I said, not critical.

I don't know why we have to speak in hypotheticals when Fallout already did this and AoD does it too.

When you kill someone in AoD you get a +1 body count. If your body count is high enough you can intimidate people.

So gameplay creates a stat which then leads to choice. That seems different to me than say just having a body count stat at character generation representing how many people your character has killed before you started playing him.

To answer your question though. All 3 style of choices you presented are good and good RPGs should have all 3.

 

[Copper]

Yeah, all are good, especially when it's not really possible to slice them apart that easily.

 

[V_K]

What I'd wish to see gone from RPGs are the so-called "moral" choices (unless morality is a mechanics that actually affects gameplay in a meaningful way).

 

[HiddenX]

choices made by the player (chose next quest, direction, action...)
choices based on character stats/skills (combat, conversation, overcoming obstacles, action possibilities per char,...)

choices with short term consequenes (influence on the current action)
choices with long term consequences (influence on the questline, story, game ending, ...)

tactical choices (combat moves, equipment selection, party order,...)
strategic choices (party selection, initial stats, choose faction,...)

choices in interaction (select an answer in conversation, start fight, flee, bribe, ...)

choices in character development (developing party stats, skills, ...)

 

[sea]

For me, the core of an RPG is allowing players to enjoy the game using their preferred play-style out of a system that supports multiple alternatives, and ideally having the game respond to it in ways that are or at least feel unique to that play-style. Perhaps choices should be considered on the basis of how they work towards that goal. I'm not sure I'd want to split choices into different types; I'm not sure that's especially valuable, other than perhaps gauging the ratio of how different choices within a game "feels".

 

[Abelian]

I'm not sure I'd want to split choices into different types; I'm not sure that's especially valuable, other than perhaps gauging the ratio of how different choices within a game "feels".

But if we don't split choices into different types, how are we going to argue and nitpick regarding which is better and why?

 

[HiddenX]

In a good CRPG a lot of "pseudo choices" have to be built in. The decision tree can't grow forever.

Otherwise you get a memory problem very fast:


Lets assume in each situation of a game you get 3 choices which leads to unique situations that offer 3 other choices and so on.

Then you have after n-decisions 3^n unique situations.

1: 3
2: 9
3: 27
...
10: 59049
...
20: 3486784401
...
100: 5,15e+47
...
105: 1,25e+50

(BTW: 6,00e+49 = count of all atoms on earth => after only 105 decisions you could have reached more unique situations than atoms on earth!)

 

[DalekFlay]

I think New Vegas did a good job of having stat-based choices and options without making you feel like those were destined by your class style. I was a charming sniper in my main playthrough but I often couldn't persuade someone because the speech check wanted survival skills or energy weapons, which I didn't use. There was no class that could always charm people in that game, and many demands were abstract like an old retired merc wanting you to know about survival to talk to him man-to-man.

In general though I do think most RPGs follow the "destined to use this method because of class" archetype, which is disappointing.

 

[Abelian]

In a good CRPG a lot of "pseudo choices" have to be built in. The decision tree can't grow forever.

Otherwise you get a memory problem very fast:

Ah, yes, the infamous combinatorial explosion. The inherent assumption is that each of those results are "unique situations". However, games usually have optional sidequests that can be completed at the player's leisure, i.e. the optional quests are independent events, so the outcomes are combinations, not permutations, so the actual number of game states is much smaller.

A simplistic solution is the reputation system in BG, where the sidequests have no bearing on the main quest, only the net difference between reputation-increasing actions and reputation-decreasing actions matters.

 

[DeepOcean]

In a good CRPG a lot of "pseudo choices" have to be built in. The decision tree can't grow forever.

Otherwise you get a memory problem very fast:


Lets assume in each situation of a game you get 3 choices which leads to unique situations that offer 3 other choices and so on.

Then you have after n-decisions 3^n unique situations.

1: 3
2: 9
3: 27
...
10: 59049
...
20: 3486784401
...
100: 5,15e+47
...
105: 1,25e+50

(BTW: 6,00e+49 = count of all atoms on earth => after only 105 decisions you could have reached more unique situations than atoms on earth!)

You have a point but this isn't 100% accurate. If it was this way, it would be impossible for PnP campaigns to ever exist as any GM would go insane trying to keep track of all those combinations. There are a few GM tricks to keep the power of the choice of the players under control without completely removing it as most cRPGs do.

Example: You do a mission to capture a noble for the king but for some reason you fail the mission because you were dumbfuck, didn't have the right skills or did everything wrong. Instead of watching a game over screen as most cRPGs would present you (succeed or die that is the the most options cRPGs offer to the players), you flee the noble's mansion but are captured by the guards of the king because you failed your mission and now you have to escape the king's dungeon in the next scene. You start the next mission on the dungeons and have to escape, on the middle of your escape you discover the king was murdered and the palace is a chaos. If you succeed and capture the noble for the king, you bring him to the king but it's too late he already has too much influence over the court and a vicious fight start between his supporters and the guards that are loyal to the king. You have to escape the madness.

Two different ways to reach the same results but allowing some freedom to the player. If it was as traditional cRPGs do, you failed in capturing the noble?... Fuck you! Now watch a game over screen and reload.

 

[Norfleet]

You have a point but this isn't 100% accurate. If it was this way, it would be impossible for PnP campaigns to ever exist as any GM would go insane trying to keep track of all those combinations. There are a few GM tricks to keep the power of the choice of the players under control without completely removing it as most cRPGs do.

Human GMs have an ability that the computer doesn't, though. When something goes completely off the rails, they wing it and just start making shit up. An intermission might be called so that they can think of more content to add. The computer can't normally do this, so the players must be kept to a relatively narrow set of rails. But you never know, maybe some day they'll work out procedurally generated content to the point where the computer CAN generate an entire storyline off the rails.