Guild Wars 2

So I’m one of those crazy people that actually likes having a story in my games and what separates games from books is the ability to interact with and change that story as it develops. In the beginning the writers didn’t seem to have anything against player agency but over this past year it has definitely felt like the they not only don’t want it but is actively removing it from the game.

I first felt this when the devs removed the personality types from the Hero UI, but that could just mean it was hidden. Then we had the battle for LA. I understand development times and budget restrictions on things but some of the mechanics in that LS release were a slap in the face to player interaction. The most prominent one being the toxicity level in the city; no matter how much the players stopped or didn’t stop the toxic canisters from being released, the toxicity increased at the same measured rate. Why bother doing something if it doesn’t matter?

This has continued into the current LS season. The first two episodes were fairly linear and it could be forgiven as setting up the rest of the season. However, the third and fourth episodes really felt like we were on train tracks. (This is the story, there will be no deviations and you WILL like it) is how it felt. There wasn’t even an option for being charming, dignified or brutish in the dialogue trees. This is a problem.

One of the main sticking points for me, and many others it appears, is the scene with Taimi, her device, and Phlunt. This is a perfect example of no interaction, no player agency, and a time when it would have improved the feel of the episode immensely. The lack of it I can only assume is because the writers don’t want it in there because….something. Here is what I’d like to suggest:

Start incorporating choices and dialogue trees into the LS. In the scene with Taimi we could have 3 options.
*1. What you already wrote.
*2. You grab Taimi by the ear and hand over the device “for the greater good”
*3. You shove your greatsword so far up Phlunts kitten that he never sits down again then Taimi agrees to share her device with the Council.
The functional result is the same. The Council gets Taimis’ device and Phlunt goes to the summit. The difference is in the flavor text in how that happens and it makes players feel like they had an impact on what happens. The cost is maybe a couple hours extra programming and writing.

Given the scheduling you’ve adopted for LS episode releases and your development times for LS episodes you can even take this a step further. You’ve already created the code to track player inputs with the Evon/Kiel vote. Modify this system to track how many people chose what option and use this to refine further episodes. Ex:
*1. This would be a neutral change.
*2. This would be a positive change for future player interactions with the Asura Council. Maybe they refer to us a bit less as clueless bookah or say we more intelligence than the average skritt. IE, something other than pure condescending arrogance.
*3. This would be a negative change for future interactions with the council. Maybe they’re overly insulting next time we meet or they make us wait to see them or perform some menial task before they’ll consider things.

If you’re willing to let the players have a measure of control over the world then you can expand this concept to a 5 point scale (-2, -1, 0, 1, +2).
*-2. The Asuran Council is openly hostile towards you and tries to make your life hell when they talk to you.
*-1. The Council is insulting and antagonistic but generally willing to look in your general direction.
*0. Normal
*1. The Council sees that you aren’t a common bookah and listens to you…sometimes.
*+2. The Council actually talks to you and respects your opinion. Too bad you weren’t Asura or you might actually be intelligent.
Future LS episodes can give you a chance to modify these relations in either direction.

This would all be flavor text and wouldn’t change the functional direction of the story in any meaningful way but it makes things feel like they are changing.

I know from past interviews that you go through several iterations and brainstorming sessions to get the dialogue right, I’m betting at least some of those discarded ideas could be used for making this kind of thing work.

Is this something the LS team has considered? Willing to consider? If not, why? Is it really just too infeasible with your time/budget? Or something else? Please consider putting some form of agency back in the game. Without agency I might as well just read a book.

It would be crazy cool if your choices of dialogue could somehow store as variables to be used later within the story. Like if you suck up to Phlunt, he is nice to you, otherwise he is crazy rude. Or, and this is probably too much, choices that actually determine which version of a story step you can complete on a character.

Angel McCoy.1832:

I think that’s a very cool idea. We do it sometimes.

Can Phlunt be grumpy in my asura home instance please?

Pretty please with a cherry on top?))

Angel McCoy.1832:

eekzie.5640:

Angel McCoy.1832:

I think that’s a very cool idea. We do it sometimes.

Can Phlunt be grumpy in my asura home instance please?

Pretty please with a cherry on top?))

LOL. He’s quite an old Scrooge, isn’t he?

My first advisor, the one who taught me almost everything I know (almost), was
Blipp Phlunt.

wwwes.1398:

Like if you suck up to Phlunt, he is nice to you, otherwise he is crazy rude.

For some reason I read “suck up to” as “sucker punch” and it still made sense.

Angel McCoy.1832:

We’re as much fans of player agency as you are, I assure you. The hurdle we face is that in order to do due diligence to those three Taimi choices you offer up, we have to have repercussions for each. You can’t just stab Phlunt, then have him appear again in the next release. Ultimately...Taimi had to give up the device.

We are always discussing ways to get more player agency into the game. It’s not as easy or as simple as any of us would like, however.

The one place we can have player agency is in dialogue trees. We are doing a lot of customization with conditional content based on your race, gender, profession, and history. We can also look for opportunities to give you more choice in how you respond.

While stabbing Phlunt in that situation would have been very satisfying to me, I was speaking more metaphorically than literally.

I understand the complexities involved in pre-scripting so many variables and how they can cause unintended discrepancies. That’s why I was thinking a more simplified scale on how far it can go and limiting it to dialogue options that would color how things appear but leave it functionally the same. A red bowtie and a polkadot bowtie are different colors but they’re still awesome bowties.

I appreciate the efforts everyone has made to make the dialogue feel more personal. It really does help the feel of the story but without being able to make choices it still feels like there’s no agency. It’s not easy but I have confidence in you and everyone else. I know you’ll find a way to amaze us some more.

Angel McCoy.1832:

We are always discussing ways to get more player agency into the game. It’s not as easy or as simple as any of us would like, however.

Free advice on that? Since the Living Story has become divorced from the open world and thus doesn’t need to follow a perfectly synonymous path for everyone due to that?

Cheat.

Have there be choices which affects what happens. Have there be consequences for choices later on. You don’t need to unify it so the whole of the world is on the same page, because they’re all living their own instances . . . for the most part.

Even if it’s minor things like which allies you keep and which you tell off, or who you choose to save who otherwise would be inconsequential if they died . . . but since they lived, you can get something out of it later.

I play DM for a D&D game and my biggest tool is knowing the flow of the story and having the chance to change it on the fly if the players . . . those wacky, lovable rapscallions . . . decide to stab the guard captain giving them a hard time and dispose of his body in the moat rather than try to win his respect or apply diplomacy. (Including shouting out “dibs on his armor” as they do it.) I can invent something later on which makes them regret doing that hasty act born of boredom.

You don’t have the option to do it quite as well . . . but you can still cheat just as effectively and create the illusion of player agency in minor ways which goes a good distance to creating the feel of “this is my story”. Even if it’s not.

And besides, once you can get it working for minor things . . . then you can get it working for bigger things.

One way you could potentially make it work for the bigger things is make it another vote… but one that isn’t bought this time. On each player’s first playthrough in which they make the decisions within the initial release timeframe, what they do gets added to the vote (this could be per character rather than per account, but that might encourage people to try to rush all their characters through, which I’m not convinced would be a good thing). When the vote is tallied, announce the ‘canonical’ ending, and adjust the instance in question so that while the player may protest the canonical ending, it’s still going to happen.

The biggest problem with ‘agency’ is that a story still has to unfold in a certain way to make sense, seeing this is not a single player game … The next biggest problem is that it is very hard to spot where Agency is applied, because you will experience the story in the way you choose to let it unfold, which then becomes the way it unfolds, finding out that there are other ways the story ‘could have’ unfolded only comes when you replay it and make different choices!

I will agree with the OP though, it would be really nice to see some sort of agency in the story. Dialogue options would be a nice first step, and make use of something already in the game, they hardly change the direction of the story, but they can at least give a bit of a different flavour. I will say that I liked how Anet took criticism to heart and included some race/profession differences in story line dialogue, not only to avoid really weird incidences (f/e the Pale tree calling all PC’s her children)… But this is still very much a base level ‘spice solution’ to agency (aka. a different spice to the story doesn’t give the player any agency, it just uses different spices for the same dish…)

To those here that think coming up with Agency schematics is something simple, please do think again, ‘but’, it surely isn’t impossible, even in a story that has to unfold the same every time. If you have some time and are interested in Agency in a Game world, please do read this thread https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/lwd/Implementing-Storytelling/first#post4225443 feel free to add any general Agency Mechanics if you happen to think of some…

As far as my advice to the writers goes, please consider pressing agency in the replay of the story… With that I mean that it should be possible for us all to play through all the story options in the LS, after which the actual replay (story log) reassembles these story options into a choice model. F/e, in the convince the race leaders, the LS could have taken us to all of them, while the story log gives us 1 set path (your own race) and 2 choices for other races, for a total of 3 instances where our input matter, the other 2 are just ‘given outcomes’. That way at least for those that play the story later, or those that play it on alts, get the closest thing to agency possible in how a story has to unfold in a multiplayer setting…

1. What I could see is some sort of affection mechanic between PC and DE2.0 to resolve sometime in the next 2-3 months? Perhaps starting now, to determine what 2 character will join you most likely at point x to fight y?

• I’m thinking about choosing between Rox and Braham to find the caravan.

• How about most of the time when you gather your party before venturing forth, one of them would be unavailable and you’d have to chose between two of the remaining 4? (5 if anybody else believes frostbite & PC are enough to tackle even the most daunting foes)

• Include other NPCs like Smodur, Anise & Phlunt

2. Additional to this, the group could be split up more often during missions in order to coordinate across a map to reach their goals. Make it actual missions with fake progress bars so replayablility is a core aspect of LS2+

• Since you would be travelling with one companion only, you can use these missions and 1on1 with the commander to further flesh out their personality while giving the missions a unique feel and flavor for everybody to chose from.

• If you like sneaking, you could do the infiltration/assassination mission together with Jory. Meanwhile Braham is protecting Taimi who is building bigger lasers while Kas and Rox distract the enemy.

One of the drawbacks of the Personal Story is, that you chose one order, go with their plans but it is not communicated well enough that there are 2 other equally important orders doing their own thing in order to reach the same goal.

This might work better in a small group like DE2.0.

The PC used to be a commander of an army, now he might find special forces more efficient in battling an asymmetric war with an eluding enemy such as Mordy.

There have been some nice choices to make, such as the caravan example, I think this is the better way than options that stretch over more than one release and would have to be considered in upcoming releases. It seems like a lot of work for little gain.

That’s an interesting set of ideas. Most people have multiple characters, so they can play through different missions with other characters – or, once they’ve completed the first mission, their Story Journal remembers which one they chose to go with if it becomes relevant later on, but all possible choices become available for replaying?

I think all of the options should be available for replay regardless of which character you’re doing them on. However, the first one you do is the one recorded in your journal and the one Anet should tally as your vote for what gets made “official”.

I think that provides an interesting element of ignorance and consequence to players actions. By having the first run be the one that counts you have no foreknowledge of what will happen so you can’t really play the system to what you think is your ideal outcome. You’re left with trying to play the character as you want it to be played and accepting the outcome.

If you let any or every replay count, then it opens up a lot more gaming to the system and also starts creating weights to certain votes. What I mean by that is someone with 10 chars or the ability to replay the story 100 times in 2 weeks and chooses the same option each time will be casting a lot more votes for it than someone with 1 char or who can only play 10 times in 2 weeks. It creates more weight for one vote than the other.

I realize this doesn’t take into account guides like Dulfy which will outline everything for you within a day or two and there will always be people that use it for meta info. But not all of us base our choices from those guides and at a certain point you shouldn’t really be designing around outside guides.

While there are inherent issues with doing votes I believe it’s the fairest way to take individual choices and making them the official story. Also, when Anet set up the Evon/Kiel vote it seemed like a vast majority of the players really got into it and enjoyed it. One would hope similar engagement would happen with incorporating votes into the story.

Sorry, I can’t speak for others but agency is one of the things I get passionate about.

Well, one thing Dulfy can’t help anyone to ‘metagame’ is what the long-term result of a decision might be. If, hypothetically, we were to have the opportunity to tell Councillor Punt to jump off the cliff, then if I was handling the story I wouldn’t have the summit in the same episode – you’d have to wait until the result was locked in before you found out whether or not Punt decided that the summit was more important than carrying out his threat after all.

@Drax, few posts back, if you do a vote like that, then you actually remove all agency for players in replay? it only adds a way to vote for in which order things in the past went… so you can play it ‘right’ and without any agency the next time? doesn’t seem to solve it…

@Torsailr, you mention playing all the options, yet you desire agency… if one thing, agency is foregoing some option by having the choice to do the other thing. Now I can see how your post may be a response to Draxynnic, but then please do consider a @Draxynnic next time… Because I too suggested a way to add agency in the game, mostly for the replay, that also wouldn’t allow you to play all option, On 1 character, but would add agency in the game, by having you actually choose your course of action from all the options presented.

@Tobias, while that works in a small group, and where you can take your deviations on to another play night. I do hope you see that once you make say 3 paths to unfold, and you add another 2 to each, etc, then b4 long you created one big nightmare! It would also spell doom for any lore tracking players, ‘who died’ ? well depends on who you ask…

The thing that does work (somewhat) isn’t so much cheating, it is scamming… In a sense you are likely also very familiar with. “You come to a split in the road, on leads off into the rugged mountains, the other into a dark forest, where do you go?” … where the rugged mountains lead to a fight with a bunch of Trolls, and finding an armour with +1 defence vs undead. The road into the forest leads to a fight with agry forest elves, and finding a short sword with a +1 attack vs. undead (though arguably, the weapon find might have a little impact on a later fight ->) both roads end in a village where you want your group to get into this hilarious bar fight you come up with…

See, you haven’t really given them a choice, the roads both led to the same place, but, you did give them a different experience along the road… although arguably you could even make the item found the same, seeing they are no longer going ‘the other way’ they will never find out what they would have found there… This last bit doesn’t work in games, because a gazillion people will make the other choice, and compare results in the end… There is a way around this though, by splitting up the DE2.0 group and having a choice yourself, to then at the end have them come back together and discuss results. Which would be the results of what everybody experiences if they choose the other group…

Still though, in effect, it is not true agency as to have an impact on the story, it just gives you the choice as to which part of the story you experience, so that it becomes ‘your story’.

- On votes
General votes work, but it’s hard to come up with things to vote about through actions, and I personally think the result should either be hidden (so it’s basically a mere tool for the writers to take certain actions from the players into account on how the story is going to unfold.) OR, in case some indication is given, it should be unclear as to what it is used for (f/e a counter for the types of foes slain).

This type of agency I also covered, and I think it could be a nice way to have the community as a whole drive the story. But seeing how development takes up its time, such things should either be trivial (aka. there are 3 groups of foes, you count which gets slain the most, those foes are considered ‘defeated’, and only 2 types of foes are in the rest of the story).

Or they should be implemented as part of a ‘cliff hanger’ type deal, where the results are able to be taken into account for the next LS story bit. This becomes easier with clever writing and building of content, if you can conceive the ‘podium’ before hand, and actually already write ‘the plays’ that might take place on it based upon the outcome; you can consolidate the work needed to be done, before hand, and have ‘the play’ based upon the outcome of the cliff hanger vote be implemented in it.

end statement
I would love to see all of these used at some point or another, seeing they enrich the story and make it a tad more ‘your own’. Even though trivial choices seem somewhat lame in hindsight, if you are honest about it it’s the only choice we have realy… Heck even life is just a string of trivial choices, as there is nothing you can do to escape death, the only certainty, as once you are born, you are bound to die, and all the stuff in the middle, is just ways to keep you occupied until that day comes…

Not saying it’s not worth it, or that choices in life don’t come with consequences (something a lot harder to achieve in a game world), or aren’t meaningful … that’s just it, they are. Thus having trivial choices in a game’s story can be just as interesting and meaningful, and while hard could most certainly come with consequences.

you reached the limit of …

And actually, whether or not you actually do have ‘any’ choice in life is a matter of philosophical debate. Sure there are a million things to eat, but you got to eat, and you will choose upon what’s available to you and what your taste buds tell you to, do you have any agency over that? The success of fast food restaurants basically shows that your the level of agency hardly has anything to do with your ‘free will’ to choose… but like I said, that’s a whole different discussion…

Arghore.8340:

you reached the limit of …

And actually, whether or not you actually do have ‘any’ choice in life is a matter of philosophical debate. Sure there are a million things to eat, but you got to eat, and you will choose upon what’s available to you and what your taste buds tell you to, do you have any agency over that? The success of fast food restaurants basically shows that your the level of agency hardly has anything to do with your ‘free will’ to choose… but like I said, that’s a whole different discussion…

but by that example how would you explain a vegaterian who may love bacon but chooses not to eat it because of there love for animals?

sorry, not trying to be annoying. Just curious as to your answer.

If some conversation text options were put into the game so that we can pick the character of our player characters, even if makes no game play difference, then that would be a step forward. Nobody wants to look the words on screen and think “These are someone else’s words. My character would never say that.”

Arghore.8340:

@Tobias, while that works in a small group, and where you can take your deviations on to another play night. I do hope you see that once you make say 3 paths to unfold, and you add another 2 to each, etc, then b4 long you created one big nightmare! It would also spell doom for any lore tracking players, ‘who died’ ? well depends on who you ask…

Of course it could spell doom (not "would’), but it could also generate interest in what alternatives there are. But that’s part of the “cheat” you enact and the really tight line you walk – you have to make these decisions feel like they have an impact without having them actually have an impact on what direction things are heading.

And it does work.

The thing that does work (somewhat) isn’t so much cheating, it is scamming… In a sense you are likely also very familiar with. “You come to a split in the road, on leads off into the rugged mountains, the other into a dark forest, where do you go?” … where the rugged mountains lead to a fight with a bunch of Trolls, and finding an armour with +1 defence vs undead. The road into the forest leads to a fight with agry forest elves, and finding a short sword with a +1 attack vs. undead (though arguably, the weapon find might have a little impact on a later fight ->) both roads end in a village where you want your group to get into this hilarious bar fight you come up with…

That’s not “scamming” them, and that’s not unusual for GMs to do in their games. It’s also quite within the realm of normality – they know they need to reach the village and there’s two paths to choose. Which one they choose will still get them there, but have different details.

See, you haven’t really given them a choice, the roads both led to the same place, but, you did give them a different experience along the road… although arguably you could even make the item found the same, seeing they are no longer going ‘the other way’ they will never find out what they would have found there… This last bit doesn’t work in games, because a gazillion people will make the other choice, and compare results in the end…

See, that’s the beauty of it . . . that doesn’t matter as much as you think it does. “The Walking Dead” games most likely do have someone who has sat down and charted out all the possible choices and their effects, but in the end? It doesn’t matter. It’s the players’ choice on how they play the game, and so long as you make it so the choices do have a difference of some impact (while still maintaining the core story you want to tell) then there’s not an issue.

Still though, in effect, it is not true agency as to have an impact on the story, it just gives you the choice as to which part of the story you experience, so that it becomes ‘your story’.

You’re not going to get true agency in a computer game without the things discussed above, where the story needs to be altered on the fly and within short notice. The dev team isn’t that agile, no team is really going to be capable of developing things like the Living Story (the one we are discussing here, where it is possible to change the flow of things) if a bunch of players change major details in the middle.

saventis.1485:

Arghore.8340:

you reached the limit of …

And actually, whether or not you actually do have ‘any’ choice in life is a matter of philosophical debate. Sure there are a million things to eat, but you got to eat, and you will choose upon what’s available to you and what your taste buds tell you to, do you have any agency over that? The success of fast food restaurants basically shows that your the level of agency hardly has anything to do with your ‘free will’ to choose… but like I said, that’s a whole different discussion…

but by that example how would you explain a vegaterian who may love bacon but chooses not to eat it because of there love for animals?

sorry, not trying to be annoying. Just curious as to your answer.

Yup, while a strong personality and indeed in a sense taking ‘agency’ over his own actions. He will need to eat fats and protein, so his choice not to eat bacon while he loves it, will lead him to eat bacon flavoured Tofu. So yes, he has the choice over which kinds of fats and protein he takes, he doesn’t have a choice over actually eating fats and protein.

And, even though he experiences a personal satisfaction of the idea that no animal was slaughtered for his consumption. In the grand scheme of things, I am fairly sure there wasn’t some pig that didn’t get slaughtered because of it. Even if the amount of vegetarians had any impact, it would be that less pigs would be bread for slaughter… but the economic reality is that the amount of pigs bread is related to a certain amount of scarcity that warrants a price per pig that makes it profitable to raise pigs for slaughter (this may include government funding to secure a certain level of food security).

That though, doesn’t make his choice less commendable, nor does it diminish his personal experience. But in the large scheme of life, it is like taking the route through the forest or through the mountains, both end up in the same place… and if anything he accomplished a pig not being born, sure it’s different from having another bred for slaughter, big question is though, would it have? More then likely no more pigs would be bred and he would have made bacon a 0,000000001ct more expensive if he would have eaten it, with how supply & demand works… but again, his choice is commendable, and his experience rewarding on a personal level

@Tobias, exactly my point … so ok it’s not really scamming, because it’s the choice that counts at that particular moment, and knowing there is a different experience lying ahead. That’s one of the major things I ran into while doing the thread that I linked earlier, how can you supply an interesting choice, leading to a different experience while keeping the same outcome… and do so in such a way that you don’t supply the player with the same stuff every time, so that (s)he starts to feel the choice is just arbitrary.

It’s dang hard, and the options are (so far) fairly limited, mechanic wise, but I am sure that if you practice at it the actual context in which these mechanics are presented can be both meaningful as well as lead to interesting experiences. Heck, if that wasn’t the case then there would not be any table top RPG worth playing …

(on that note and slightly off topic, it’s still somewhat sad that our current society is more concerned with the destination (aka. reward for minimal effort) than it is about the journey and maximum immersion and enjoyment – but I guess that’s a whole different discussion all together.)

Arghore.8340:

saventis.1485:

Arghore.8340:

you reached the limit of …

And actually, whether or not you actually do have ‘any’ choice in life is a matter of philosophical debate. Sure there are a million things to eat, but you got to eat, and you will choose upon what’s available to you and what your taste buds tell you to, do you have any agency over that? The success of fast food restaurants basically shows that your the level of agency hardly has anything to do with your ‘free will’ to choose… but like I said, that’s a whole different discussion…

but by that example how would you explain a vegaterian who may love bacon but chooses not to eat it because of there love for animals?

sorry, not trying to be annoying. Just curious as to your answer.

Yup, while a strong personality and indeed in a sense taking ‘agency’ over his own actions. He will need to eat fats and protein, so his choice not to eat bacon while he loves it, will lead him to eat bacon flavoured Tofu. So yes, he has the choice over which kinds of fats and protein he takes, he doesn’t have a choice over actually eating fats and protein.

And, even though he experiences a personal satisfaction of the idea that no animal was slaughtered for his consumption. In the grand scheme of things, I am fairly sure there wasn’t some pig that didn’t get slaughtered because of it. Even if the amount of vegetarians had any impact, it would be that less pigs would be bread for slaughter… but the economic reality is that the amount of pigs bread is related to a certain amount of scarcity that warrants a price per pig that makes it profitable to raise pigs for slaughter (this may include government funding to secure a certain level of food security).

That though, doesn’t make his choice less commendable, nor does it diminish his personal experience. But in the large scheme of life, it is like taking the route through the forest or through the mountains, both end up in the same place… and if anything he accomplished a pig not being born, sure it’s different from having another bred for slaughter, big question is though, would it have? More then likely he would have made bacon a 0,000001ct more expensive if he would have eaten it, with how supply & demand goes… but again, his choice is commendable, and his experience rewarding on a personal level

Ah right

So he has the illusion of making a "better"choice. But in the end he still would choose the bacon flavor over the fish (weird topic)

in an odd way i think i understand where your coming from a bit better now.

(random tangent)But bringing that pig (another life) into being. Wouldnt that change everyone’s potential decision based on the fact that a new entity that can (supposedly) make choices that may effect future events in other peoples lives.
pig is in the middle of a highway, if the pig turns right a car would have hit it if it turned left a car would stop just in a nick of time.

it has the same initial conditions but results differ due to choice.

@Saventis, in this case you could view it as an illusion of choice yes, but not less meaningful to the person making it! … what he would choose I do not know, I’m no vegetarian, and bacon is pretty good… but he has no choice in consuming protein and fat. Sure he could go with fish instead (still killing an animal though), but why? if he likes bacon and there is bacon flavoured tofu, why not eat that?

I don’t fully get the rest of your post tbh. I basically argued that the choice of all vegetarians to not eat meat has little to no impact on the amount of animals slaughtered for their meat, simply because that works on an economic principle. aka:

The cost to raise the amount of animals to be slaughtered < the amount of meat sold for a certain price… and that price is based upon demand.

Now sure, all the vegetarians lower the demand, but more then anything, that lowers the price, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are less animals raised for slaughter, given that the amount of meat still sold returns more money than it cost to raise that amount of animals.

And if everybody would be a vegetarian, than less animals would be bred ! So there would be less animals around. It’s not that it results in there being more animals actually living a normal live… actually, it’s very likely we would just kill them to attain the amount of land to grow crops instead…

Arghore.8340:

@Saventis, in this case you could view it as an illusion of choice yes, but not less meaningful to the person making it! … what he would choose I do not know, I’m no vegetarian, and bacon is pretty good… but he has no choice in consuming protein and fat. Sure he could go with fish instead (still killing an animal though), but why? if he likes bacon and there is bacon flavoured tofu, why not eat that?

I don’t fully get the rest of your post tbh. I basically argued that the choice of all vegetarians to not eat meat has little to no impact on the amount of animals slaughtered for their meat, simply because that works on an economic principle. aka:

The cost to raise the amount of animals to be slaughtered < the amount of meat sold for a certain price… and that price is based upon demand.

Now sure, all the vegetarians lower the demand, but more then anything, that lowers the price, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are less animals raised for slaughter, given that the amount of meat still sold returns more money than it cost to raise that amount of animals.

And if everybody would be a vegetarian, than less animals would be bred ! So there would be less animals around. It’s not that it results in there being more animals actually living a normal live… actually, it’s very likely we would just kill them to attain the amount of land to grow crops instead…

yea sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there lol dont worry yourself with it to much heh

Arghore.8340:

@Tobias, exactly my point … so ok it’s not really scamming, because it’s the choice that counts at that particular moment, and knowing there is a different experience lying ahead. That’s one of the major things I ran into while doing the thread that I linked earlier, how can you supply an interesting choice, leading to a different experience while keeping the same outcome… and do so in such a way that you don’t supply the player with the same stuff every time, so that (s)he starts to feel the choice is just arbitrary.

See, I learned my GM skills mostly from “Choose Your Own Adventure” books . . . which were the epitome of “false choices”. I sharpened them playing the Gold Box games for a time, then I paid close attention to the Black Isle game of Baldur’s Gate.

For those unfamiliar, I’ll sum it up: The main story? You can’t do much to alter its course, but you can change its meaning as well as affect how the journey affects your companions.

That’s what I mean to see emulated if they want to add Player Agency to the Living World. Not in shaping the great path of destiny, but in making the story truly, inescapably ours through the choices we make and not the end results.

It’s dang hard, and the options are (so far) fairly limited, mechanic wise, but I am sure that if you practice at it the actual context in which these mechanics are presented can be both meaningful as well as lead to interesting experiences. Heck, if that wasn’t the case then there would not be any table top RPG worth playing …

I highly recommend looking up the Counter Monkey series (only if you are over 18) by Noah Antwiler, and also Shamus Young’s site and checking out what he has to say on the topic of narratives. (Spoiler Warning is fun.)

(on that note and slightly off topic, it’s still somewhat sad that our current society is more concerned with the destination (aka. reward for minimal effort) than it is about the journey and maximum immersion and enjoyment – but I guess that’s a whole different discussion all together.)

That depends on who you talk to, because I find a lot of Minecraft mod users tend to really enjoy the journey. Likewise a few people who have been talking nonstop about Telltale’s “The Walking Dead” . . .

. . . and to a lesser extent, those who enjoy “Game of Thrones”. I think we all know the ending (everyone except Arya dies) but it’s entertaining to many to watch the path which is taken.

I’ve got a running bet with my friends that at the end of ASoIaF, the White Walkers break through the wall and kill/devour everybody. Eternal winter descends upon the world. All life dies. The End.

The books are a metaphor for the inevitable victory of entropy in the real world and how, millions of years from now, the Universe itself will die and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it.

Angel McCoy.1832:

We are doing a lot of customization with conditional content based on your race, gender, profession, and history. We can also look for opportunities to give you more choice in how you respond.

The examples I’ve seen from that come off as lip service to me and not true agency. As you mentioned before, Taimi always have to give up the device, the same goes for every reference to race, gender, profession and history. I’ll give an example from last year.

In the A Study in Scarlet instance Marjory mentions to Priory players that dropping their name as a contact helped her request. This is simply lip service because the instance is identical for Priory and Vigil or Whispers players. You decision to become Priory didn’t matter her aside from Marjory’s lip service.

Back to the original examples Torsailr gave.

Torsailr.8456:

Start incorporating choices and dialogue trees into the LS. In the scene with Taimi we could have 3 options.
*1. What you already wrote.
*2. You grab Taimi by the ear and hand over the device “for the greater good”
*3. You shove your greatsword so far up Phlunts kitten that he never sits down again then Taimi agrees to share her device with the Council.

If the required outcome is always that Taimi gives up the device, the agency would be in how that happens. Killing Phlunt may be off the table, but sympathetically siding with Taimi and bitterly handing the device over to Phlunt could be the third option.

The difference is the player who is supposed to the boss actually has some agency in how they interact with the world around them. Instead of having our interactions with Taimi scripted here with no options, it would have been great to have the option of being annoyed with her immaturity and wasting my time. It would also make future interactions with Taimi more genuine if she liked you less because you got annoyed with her (or maybe she grew up a little because you expected her to behave like an adult and she learned a lesson) or she likes you more because you side with her against Phlunt.

I don’t feel like player agency is well represented in the story because while we see Taimi’s feelings about Phlunt recognised (her comments during the summit) the story doesn’t recognise the player’s feelings or decisions (because the player never had choices). It still feels like I’m a sixth wheel playing through other people’s stories.

I’m sure someone at ArenaNet has played Telltale’s The Walking Dead. The game has a mostly linear plot that begins at the same place and ends in the same place with set check points along the way, but throughout the whole game you are constantly making choices that matter. Sometimes it means characters live or die based on your choices, sometimes it means characters will side with your or oppose you based on your choices. It’s not a perfect game but it makes player choices matter a lot and the immersion in the game is stronger because of it. Skyrim does a good job with this system as well.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Free advice on that? Since the Living Story has become divorced from the open world and thus doesn’t need to follow a perfectly synonymous path for everyone due to that?

Cheat.

Have there be choices which affects what happens. Have there be consequences for choices later on. You don’t need to unify it so the whole of the world is on the same page, because they’re all living their own instances . . . for the most part.

I think the fact that the two are already divorced should encourage efforts to bring them back together, not throw caution to the wind and embrace the single life.

one of the reasons that made me buy this game was actually the ability to choose your character behavior via charming, dignified or brutish, which i found very innovative and interesting in a mmo.
but sadly it has been removed,There wasn’t even an option for being charming, dignified or brutish in the dialogue trees during LS2. This is a problem, characters are sidelined in favor of npc heroes because perhaps its easier to tell the story linear and even giving an illusion of choice(like personal story for example) is require more work, i feel like arena net is moving toward less work but more profit(gem store).

I really don’t think we should be encouraging ANet to bite off more than they can chew again in regards to player choices…at least in regards to the overarching plot. Flavor options yes, hamstringing development and writing time to account for enumerating choices no.

Shiren.9532:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Free advice on that? Since the Living Story has become divorced from the open world and thus doesn’t need to follow a perfectly synonymous path for everyone due to that?

Cheat.

Have there be choices which affects what happens. Have there be consequences for choices later on. You don’t need to unify it so the whole of the world is on the same page, because they’re all living their own instances . . . for the most part.

I think the fact that the two are already divorced should encourage efforts to bring them back together, not throw caution to the wind and embrace the single life.

Merging it back into the open world as opposed to personal instances would remove any hope of “player agency” of the kind you said you wished earlier in your post. They simply couldn’t do it, because it has to match up for all players as opposed to just tracking one player’s set of data.

The “single life” is the only hope we have of a story being personal and containing even a semblance of agency. As much as people bring up SW:TOR . . . that’s divorced into instances, from what I recall. Not open world.

In SWTOR main story was instanced, but the regional story was not. You could’ve still talk to NPC and quest givers (in outside world) and have your own course of action, possibly different from another player.

kasoki.5180:

In SWTOR main story was instanced, but the regional story was not. You could’ve still talk to NPC and quest givers (in outside world) and have your own course of action, possibly different from another player.

But would it do anything different to the open world?

I’m not sure I know what you mean.

I will try to answer it as I understood the question. For example, there is a quest in SWTOR called testing grounds where you have to poison water supplies of local rebels. The poison causes sever pain and prolonged suffering.

But another officer tells you that you can end the rebellion with stronger poisoning of the water which kills them instantly.

You can choose – let the rebels suffer, or kill them instantly. Depending on your choice you get Light or Dark side character points (which determine a part of your end game gear)

The key idea is letting player create his/hers own personality within that situation, even if the end result is not radically different.

kasoki.5180:

I’m not sure I know what you mean.

I will try to answer it as I understood the question. For example, there is a quest in SWTOR called testing grounds where you have to poison water supplies of local rebels. The poison causes sever pain and prolonged suffering.

But another officer tells you that you can end the rebellion with stronger poisoning of the water which kills them instantly.

You can choose – let the rebels suffer, or kill them instantly. Depending on your choice you get Light or Dark side character points (which determine a part of your end game gear)

The key idea is letting player create his/hers own personality within that situation, even if the end result is not radically different.

But do we actually SEE dead rebels, do other players get to see the persistence of the choice?

I understand the point of the choice (“should we kick the puppies or just shoot them in the back of the head?”, like most Good/Evil polar choices you have to make on that sort of system) . . . but I’m asking does it have an actual impact besides to your character’s “development” . . .

In short: sure, the choice might have some effect. But from what you described it’s minimal with impact on the open world, since any other player can come along and find the same choice there . . . and if they choose different? Nothing changes.

That’s a sloppy cheat to give the player a sense of agency.

It’s not a sloppy cheat. It influences your character progression, characters personality, the way world (NPCs) react to you.
Most importantly, it influences how you perceive your own character and build your own in game identity.

Why should it have such an impact that it changes the whole world for other players (minecraft?) in order to be a viable option and difference?

For example, it is like saying that your choice of college means nothing since at that moment, to the outside world you are just a student no matter your college option. But it does matter to you, it influences you as the person and your personal growth, and others might/will acknowledge your choice and act differently based on it.

It changes how NPCs react to you but not because you’ve actually changed anything in the open world, which is what everyone’s point is. It’s difficult (bordering on impossible) to have many options for the PC in the Living Story that also reflect on the actual open world.

Also at this juncture of the living story, we are so beyond “personal choices that primarily just affect the PC” that it can’t be considered. The only way we could is with “side story” type things.

Lostwingman.5034:

It changes how NPCs react to you but not because you’ve actually changed anything in the open world, which is what everyone’s point is. It’s difficult (bordering on impossible) to have many options for the PC in the Living Story that also reflect on the actual open world.

Also at this juncture of the living story, we are so beyond “personal choices that primarily just affect the PC” that it can’t be considered. The only way we could is with “side story” type things.

Where was it everyones’s point that it should be about changing open world content? I must’ve missed something, and did not personally argue for it. It was about player agency and developing your own character. Manipulation of the open world only came in when I mentioned open world quests in SWTOR

GW has a great chance at player agency because personal and living story are instanced.

The whole point of instancing the story was not to separate the open world from the living story, it was to allow people to experience the living story if they were not around for that particular update (as was VERY common with LS1). The whole point of the Living Story model is that the story we experience is reflected on the Open World.

kasoki.5180:

It’s not a sloppy cheat. It influences your character progression, characters personality, the way world (NPCs) react to you.
Most importantly, it influences how you perceive your own character and build your own in game identity.

So does the stuff I make up in my head, or the “Personality questions” you get asked now and then by NPCs. Either of those things do not change the world, and so are not real player agency. All they do is give you a chance to roleplay.

If that’s what we think of as “player agency” then we have a long way to go yet to reach where people started this thread talking about.

Why should it have such an impact that it changes the whole world for other players (minecraft?) in order to be a viable option and difference?

Because that’s the level of agency people really want to have – the feeling their choices matter in the future rather than just being dialogue options with no effect.

For example, it is like saying that your choice of college means nothing since at that moment, to the outside world you are just a student no matter your college option. But it does matter to you, it influences you as the person and your personal growth, and others might/will acknowledge your choice and act differently based on it.

. . . oh your choice of college means a lot more than some people readily assume. That’s why some employers see “community college” and wonder if you really have the skills needed vs someone who has, say, “Stanford” on their resume.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Why should it have such an impact that it changes the whole world for other players (minecraft?) in order to be a viable option and difference?

Because that’s the level of agency people really want to have – the feeling their choices matter in the future rather than just being dialogue options with no effect.

Let’s be honest, given that much player agency would result in a world where every npc is killed off by players, towns are no more than ransacked burnt remains , and every map gets filled with kitten-shaped structures.

Naetell.3815:

Let’s be honest, given that much player agency would result in a world where every npc is killed off by players, towns are no more than ransacked burnt remains , and every map gets filled with kitten-shaped structures.

You’d think so, but there’s quite a lot of Minecraft servers which . . . despite the potential for perverse structures, it’s actually pretty nice. I think, honestly, it’s more likely players would reach an understanding over the “simple ground rules of decency” in a game and keep things clean.

But then, I’m an optimist when it comes to people. Mostly because I watch about six truly twisted and peverse people semi-regularly do freeform stuff on games and they seem to adhere pretty well to things. (I think it helps some of them have kids and know, at some point, they’ll find out.)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Naetell.3815:

Let’s be honest, given that much player agency would result in a world where every npc is killed off by players, towns are no more than ransacked burnt remains , and every map gets filled with kitten-shaped structures.

You’d think so, but there’s quite a lot of Minecraft servers which . . . despite the potential for perverse structures, it’s actually pretty nice. I think, honestly, it’s more likely players would reach an understanding over the “simple ground rules of decency” in a game and keep things clean.

But then, I’m an optimist when it comes to people. Mostly because I watch about six truly twisted and peverse people semi-regularly do freeform stuff on games and they seem to adhere pretty well to things. (I think it helps some of them have kids and know, at some point, they’ll find out.)

That’s because it’s minecraft. At this stage of the game’s lifecycle, most trolls have left it alone already. Also keep in mind the kind of crowd these games attract, as well as the fact they work with small servers that have the ability to keep multiple backup copies of work already done.
With GW2’s diverse crowd, you can’t hold them all to the same high standard, and there isn’t the money or server space to make frequent backups of all of GW2. Remember, it only takes one person to kill off Trahearne or Queen Jenna permanently.

Can you truly say no one would do so?

Next up, given how players already behave in GW2 atm, why do you think there wouldn’t be people out to spoil the fun of other people?
I’m talking about grievers, and they’re already out there in every section of the game. The dungeon forum is a good first sign. There are people out there who will join an LFG party only to kick everyone in the party for a cheap laugh.
As for an example where a few can screw over the many, just look at the WvW Season 2 underhanded tactics where commanders sold their servers out to give the victory to others.

Given that crowd and behaviour in today’s modern MMO games, what makes you think these people wouldn’t burn a city to the ground if they thought it would be funny to see how many QQ’s they can score?

And that’s the problem with having that degree of player agency. It takes a lot of people to build and maintain something, but only one mr. funnypants 2014 to tear it all down in an instant.

I’d like to believe in people too, but I can’t ignore the fact there already are people like that out there.

Naetell.3815:

I’d like to believe in people too, but I can’t ignore the fact there already are people like that out there.

Reluctantly agreed, even before you took the time to type all of it out. Because despite how awesome the community is and can be . . . we still get dozens if not hundreds who get a kick out of just messing around with the players trying to have a good time.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Naetell.3815:

I’d like to believe in people too, but I can’t ignore the fact there already are people like that out there.

Reluctantly agreed, even before you took the time to type all of it out. Because despite how awesome the community is and can be . . . we still get dozens if not hundreds who get a kick out of just messing around with the players trying to have a good time.

I know how awesome the community can be. As a member of GW2Community, organising and bringing people closer together, I know very well how many great people play this game. Then again, it’s no secret that we have had to ban people who got a kick out of crashing our TS.
It’s sad when that happens, it feels like kitten when you have to be the one to make that decision. But I wouldn’t trade the people that do make the community great for the world.