Don't Gamify Doing Good Deeds

[ssh83]

For me, when everything is dark all the way or when it's happy all the way, that really doesn't work so well. I think it's all about running into interesting "What if" situations and interesting reactions that wouldn't be believable in a civilized world setting.

What makes the post-apocalyptic setting interesting to me is that even though the setting is very close to reality, it also allow the game to challenge all the social norms of what people take for granted, that all leads to interesting drama.

When you see a child who is lost, do you always help him find their parent? What if no one is watching and no one cares? What if after you talk to him, it sounds like his parents abandoned him, and that by helping him, now you have to starve because he ate your ration. Then a slaver comes along and offer to buy him for a HIGH price AND treat you a nice meal for free?

If you keep him, and gave up all the rewards, then eventually you find a nice couple who's infertile due to radiation, then you give him to them. You become a family friend and the boy give you little shiny things and oddities whenever you visit. Nothing worth any money, but when you do a good deed, you don't do it for reward. Well... maybe you can brag about it when you're at a bar talking to a lady.

[Noelemahc]

Yes, I could get behind that. Every action should have a consequence. And no good deed should go unpunished, a factor that many RPG writers keep forgetting or ignoring.

Saved a random bystander from being accosted by ruffians? He is impressed by your actions, comes back half a game later, trying to do good deeds himself... except his moral compass is slightly off and he thinks that kneecapping pickpockets is a valid solution.

Given a choice whether to spare or kill the robber you've apprehended as the finale of an opening-town quest? He promises to repent, but can you trust him to do it? Do you kill him now, or jail him, or let him go with promises to find and eat his spleen if he does evil again? Then get rescued by him out of a tough jam, never see him again or have to fight him leading a band of ravenous barbarian accountants, all dependant on an unrelated quest simply because its outcome determines whether his sister lived or died?

I know these things are hard to implement with any significant complexity, but they go very far towards making the gameworld believable and loveable.

[b0rsuk]

I would phrase it differently:

Don't make the most most ethical choices invariably the most profitable ones. In real life, being ethical, honest etc often comes with a cost.

[krellen]

Why should a game I play for enjoyment punish me for being a nice guy? I don't get enough punishment for that in real life? I really need to be encouraged to be a jerk by my entertainment?

I've always liked the system of bad actions leading to immediate rewards, and good actions leading to slightly higher, but much delayed, rewards.

"Is the Dark Side stronger?" "No. Quicker, more easy, perhaps."

[lukismness]

I agree - that there needs to be some blurring of the lines between good and evil.
Why have only one option, when so many times you think of WAY more.

Why have a choice between save the beggar, or let him die. Why not take that beggar as a prisoner, or instead, take the ruffians as prisoners? Why does the 'quest' have to be one-dimensional? Why not have it reoccurring - an echo through the wastes?

Why not have the child you save follow you for a large portion of the game - observing your actions, how you treat people, how you survive? Why not have this child then follow by example? He/she could be the next savior of the wastes - by giving hope to the child, you have brought about something greater than you could ever be.

Then again - you could also be a badass.

You could fall from grace, or be redeemed, meanwhile this child is watching.

And why a child? Why not a caravan of people? Or a dog? Sooooo many options!

But back on track - no, don't gamify good OR bad deeds.

We don't want everything to be railroaded, we want chaos, we want re-playability.

[Mandemon]

I prefer "long term vs. short term" benefit.

And I agree with krellen. I get punished enough in real life because I don't insult others, glorify my own deeds, ignore others etc. etc.

I don't want game telling me how being a nice guy sucks. I know it from real life enough.

It's like in Overlord II.

Control(AKA "good") didn't give you much of a power or money. However, as you progressed the game towns started to have money chest you could loot for infinite money(smaller the delay between loots, smaller the gain), equipment for your minions, etc.

Destroy(AKA "bad") gave you more power and instant money, but in the long run you were forced to grind hostile areas for equipment and money.

Both were valid approaches and neither made game too hard or easy. Control character would have better minions, but would be weaker in combat. Destroy character would kick ass and take names, but have weaker minions.

[b0rsuk]

Why should a game I play for enjoyment punish me for being a nice guy?

False dichotomy. There's room between "punished for being a nice guy" and "you always profit the most for being a nice guy.".

And the reason it shouldn't always be like that - a game doesn't have to be a morality lesson. It's patronizing. In life, many people make more money at the expense of others. Sometimes it backfires against them in the long run, sometimes it doesn't. If you really are a nice guy, you will do your thing even if it doesn't bring a lot of money.

It can be argued that "you always profit from being a nice guy" is a bad morality lesson. Some people will just try to abuse your goodwill and help, so the next best thing is ignore them. For example, some beggars will use your money to buy drugs and alcohol. Developed countries dump excess food at Africa, and because it's farmed using modern technologies and equipment, African agricultural companies can't compete abd develop themselves and Africa remains dependant on external help. Sometimes you hurt someone by trying to help.

[krellen]

For example, some beggars will use your money to buy drugs and alcohol.

"Danny, every morning I leave an acre and a half of the most beautiful property in New Canaan, get on a train and come to work in a fifty-four story glass high rise. In between I step over bodies to get here - 20, 30, 50 of 'em a day. So, as I'm stepping over them I reach into my pocket and give them whatever I've got."

"You're not afraid they're gonna spend it on booze?"

"I'm hoping they're going to spend it on booze. Look, Dan, these people, most of 'em, it's not like they're one hot meal away from turning it around. For most of 'em the clock's pretty much run out. You'll be home soon enough. What's wrong with giving them a little novacaine to get 'em through the night?"

[Color Blotch]

Why should a game I play for enjoyment punish me for being a nice guy? I don't get enough punishment for that in real life? I really need to be encouraged to be a jerk by my entertainment?

Actually, for me being punished for being a good guy was always the major part of playing that way in first place. If you do good and then you even rewarded for it, didn't you actually play efficiently and self interested as well? How is that different from being a cold and calculating type? For me the funniest way to go is to do good, be punished for it, and then still beat the crap out of the bad guy in the end (and that's where it deviates from reality ).

[Mandemon]

I prefer if we totally forget how something is "reward for good" or "reward for bad" and instead look from other perspective:

Long term benefit vs. short term benefit.

This serve both, good and bad, in both ways.

Two examples.

EXAMPLE 1

Player encounters struggling caravan company.

"Good" option is to help caravan to get back on it's feet, by directing it to better trae routes, protecting it's caravans, etc. Player receive only small rewards, liek few hundreds in currency. Later in the game, player can encounter these caravans and outpost in different parts of the game, which give player major discount compared to others, perhaps even providing slightly better equipment.

"Bad" option is to use the opportunity and loot everything on site. Player gets enormous amounts of caps and slightly better gear than what he has at the moment. However, player loses late-game merchant that "good" player gets.

EXAMPLE 2

Player is recruited by local town to kill slavers who keep raiding the town.

"Good" option is to do just that, kill slavers. Player gets big pile of money and better equipment.

"Bad" option is to side with slavers. Player can capture slaves and use them for labor or prostitution. At first, player loses money (equipment, buying slaves, etc.) but in long run, player has sure way to get more money from single location.

In both cases, there are two options: "Long term" and "Short term", however they can either be "good" or "bad". This way we can avoid whole "good pays better than evil".

[Woolfe]

You are talking about consequences.

Doing a deed whether good or bad, will have an effect. The effect may be only your own personal gratification, or it might have short term consequences, or it might have long term consequences, or it might have all 3.

This existed in WL, albeit to a degree limited by technology of the day.

I believe Brian made some comment around this being the case, but I am too lazy to go find the update

Anyway, I am of the opinion that not only will this be included, I think it will be quite indepth. With several scopes of immediate, short and long term consequences. (based on nothing but the quality of talent working on the game)

[Lucius]

I am more interested in seeing quests that are more gray with no real clear cut "good choice" or "bad choice". Neither option is optimal but you have to choose one type scenarios. Seldom is life clear and some times what seems like the right thing to do really isn't.

[CaptainPatch]

Pretty much all actions/decisions invoke consequences. Some good, some not so good, some bad, some very bad." What the most likely consequences are determined by Social Dynamics and the local surrounding environment. In determining just what the specific consequence will be _should_ involve something something of a "die roll" with the probability of a given outcome being reflective of just what factors shape the environment and Social Dynamics. Avoid "and they lived happily ever after" results like the plague. The Wasteland for the most part is a harsh, demanding, unforgiving environment with only sparks of Happy to be encountered. Rescue a child from squalor and drop him off with a good-hearted couple and the whole Goodness of the action could very well be undone when bandits come by next weak and murders the entire family. Effectively, the child was take from "a hard life" to _dead_; which setting do you think the child would have preferred if he had known the outcome in advance. Even being Mr. Nice Guy can incur risks to others -- and being citizens of the Wasteland, they already know that. MANY people live by a philosophy of "Better the Devil you know..." That is, they may not very well thank you for "rescuing" them.

[Woolfe]

Pretty much all actions/decisions invoke consequences. Some good, some not so good, some bad, some very bad." What the most likely consequences are determined by Social Dynamics and the local surrounding environment. In determining just what the specific consequence will be _should_ involve something something of a "die roll" with the probability of a given outcome being reflective of just what factors shape the environment and Social Dynamics. Avoid "and they lived happily ever after" results like the plague. The Wasteland for the most part is a harsh, demanding, unforgiving environment with only sparks of Happy to be encountered. Rescue a child from squalor and drop him off with a good-hearted couple and the whole Goodness of the action could very well be undone when bandits come by next weak and murders the entire family. Effectively, the child was take from "a hard life" to _dead_; which setting do you think the child would have preferred if he had known the outcome in advance. Even being Mr. Nice Guy can incur risks to others -- and being citizens of the Wasteland, they already know that. MANY people live by a philosophy of "Better the Devil you know..." That is, they may not very well thank you for "rescuing" them.

Yeah, but you can't act on the "good family murdered" element. You didn't know they were going to be murdered. No one would do anything with that sort of thinking.

The actions of the bandits don't affect the goodness of the original action.

However I agree, there is never a happily ever after. Life ain't that simple. But you can have a "happy" at this moment and in the foreseeable future.

[jacknash]

I don't think we should be comparing what is "good" or "bad" in the game with real life. This is The Wasteland and things are way more messed up than in real life, so the very concept of "good" and "bad" shouldn't be what we are used to.

As not to just compare it to other post-apocalyptic settings, I will compare it to certain western setting and zombie survival setting concepts: Laws are very loose, death and sickness is in the air, everyone's fighting for nothing but survival and/or greed, corruption is everywhere.

Anyhow, "good guys" in the western and zombie genres usually have a stern sense of justice and a caring heart, but are able to make hard decisions, that can sometimes lead to "bad results" or sacrifices (people dying, building getting destroyed, etc.). I like those extreme situations that are NOT like real life. Nobody knows what a zombie apocalypse would really be like, but where I see it pulled off well, people tend to go a bit psycho and make "bad" choices. I doubt anyone in real life was as badass as Clint Eastwood in his early films, but we still love them.*

I imagine The Wasteland a bit in between, where you've got a buch of badass psychos, roaming the west, defending themselves from monsters and fighting other badass psychos, doing whatever they see fit at the moment.
I mean, this is a game were you have to kill a lot of people and get radiation. Just by that, we should never be comparing it to real life. I expect it to be much, much more bleak, with Brian & Co. making up for it with their wit and humor that I love so much. That's a good mix for a great game.

Basically, I think grey area should rule. The player should have to decide what is "good" or "bad" and not the game. Each of your decisions should benefit/punish you differently, depending on whatever the variables are and not on whether the path you choose is "good" or "bad". This leads to a lot more paths and a more interesting story. I'm pretty sure this is the direction they'll be going, judging by the FO games (never played the original Wasteland, but love the first two Fallouts).

Mandemon and CaptainPatch made some good points, so read those.

Cheers!

*It's true, you could argue that these settings, although fictional, have their roots in real life or history. But that is also one of the traits of pretty much all fictional settings anyway (even sci-fi concepts start off from current science knowledge). By this, I don't mean we should detach completely from real life, but should accept that the rules of existence can be twisted.

[TΛPETRVE]

I don't think we should be comparing what is "good" or "bad" in the game with real life. This is The Wasteland and things are way more messed up than in real life, so the very concept of "good" and "bad" shouldn't be what we are used to.

Are they now? I could tell you quite a few nice bedtime stories about war criminals, incestuous parents or paedophile public servants, and none of them would consider themselves the "bad guy". Actually, some of these people are totally convinced they're doing the right thing, and the only way to successfully "prove" them wrong would be to shove some red-hot iron up their arses until they have second thoughts.

[tuluse]

Anyhow, "good guys" in the western and zombie genres usually have a stern sense of justice and a caring heart, but are able to make hard decisions, that can sometimes lead to "bad results" or sacrifices (people dying, building getting destroyed, etc.). I like those extreme situations that are NOT like real life. Nobody knows what a zombie apocalypse would really be like, but where I see it pulled off well, people tend to go a bit psycho and make "bad" choices. I doubt anyone in real life was as badass as Clint Eastwood in his early films, but we still love them.*

I'd just like to point out that in most of his westerns, Eastwood was not really a good guy.

[MinscAndBoo]

Good or bad. As long as the quest doesn't tell me what will happen when I kill that guy or save him, then I'll be happy. It's only until I 'run' into him again, or 'hear' of the repercussion's of killing him, should I be pleasantly surprised.

You also have to remember that good intentions end badly and vice versa. So if a quest has a clear moral path, the outcome should be twisted enough that you forget about what your intention was in the first place (real life). The fun starts when you have to adjust your moral compass to try and balance things out again.

Random thought. The concept of good and bad is steeped in mystery. But the guiding light is always survival. The good path is about fear of going against cultural standards for living together, which if left unchecked, leads to ostracisation, and eventual death. The bad path is about fear of dieing, right now. So gather what you can. From whomever you can. Indulge in whatever gives you pleasure because tomorrow, you'll be dead or worse.

[Drool]

I'd just like to point out that in most of his westerns, Eastwood was not really a good guy.

True, but comparatively, he was.

[blinko]

Part of the allure of the post apocalyptic genre is the tabula rasa it creates for the world of the survivors. As individuals separated from their respective cultures' and societies' traditions and values, both physically and by time, there is nothing to hold them accountable to any overt concepts of universal morality like right, wrong, good, or evil as we might recognize. Imagine being born into a world where you didn't fear being punished for breaking laws because there were none, condemned by vengeful gods because they hadn't ever been imagined, or held accountable to honor the beliefs and decisions of others that you will never know or have cause to care about. The ostensibly harsh or apathetic decisions those people made wouldn't make them so much morally ambiguous to us as amorally ambiguous, which would open a great deal of interesting literary avenues to play with the story, as well. The survivors' individual values are all that they're accountable for, but only to themselves and the people they care about, with a rational sense of priority and consequence to guide them. Including base concepts of good and evil would be a patronizing throwback to religious or societal values that wouldn't properly exist in that world and would cheapen the experience. For example, I'd imagine infanticide would be rampant with the increased likelihood and severity of birth defects and the potentially devastating cost of a new human life, so if my character was given the choice to stop someone in the game from killing their deformed or newborn child, I'd be furious; it'd be none of my character's business in the same way that there'd be no impetus for me considering destroying an abortion clinic because of values I neither held nor understood.

Many games seek to coach the players into choosing between a right or a wrong in order to give the illusion of choice that leads to them literally turning into caricatures of the supposed results of their decisions (see: Fable 3), leaving a the world flat and tasteless, albeit simple to understand. For example, an isolated survivor wouldn't have a perfect grasp of a world he's never explored and would, by asserting and acting on his alien values, disrupt the lives of others and have to face consequences. I'd be impressed if each town my character went to had different and particular laws or customs to follow, like being arrested for speaking to the women, not being allowed to wear your boots inside homes, insulting someone by trying to barter using water or money, or having to hire a translator for your party to interact with people in a new town, so you couldn't just run around trying to speak to and search through everything you see or select all the ostensibly good decisions until you understood more about the people you were dealing with. If you wanted to help a new group of people before you understood them, you may end up breeding harm, mistrust, and unrest instead. Making mistakes shouldn't manifest frivolous penalties like making your character visibly scarred or sprout horns, but the mistakes could realistically prevent them from establishing good relations, being able to trade (at a fair rate), or being allowed into a camp or town. That guy who runs up to you and says he doesn't have much, but he'd really like that metal axe you have may be trying to acquire it because it's a status symbol to his tribe, and he needs one in order to become head of his household and take his brother's wives (you've wandered into Utah, Mormon territory). If you give it to him for free, he buys a young bride with what he saved, if you sell it at a high price, he kills his brother to inherit his possessions, if you don't trade it off at all, nothing happens. In the end, no matter your choice, you're not responsible for the actions of others, and you've learned a little more about the world you're exploring. And however what you learn about it makes you feel about that world, your feelings about that world are yours alone, and be it far from the game's place to tell you how nice or naughty your values that shaped your character's decisions are. Hopefully it will be a true exploration into a deep and fascinating world and not just a never ending series of glorified Goofus and Gallant comics set in a post-apocalyptic USA.