Thanks for the reply Vince. Now that I have a better understanding of what you are trying to do, I can try to give you "solutions". As an aspiring author with a master degree in French literature, I know a thing or two about storytelling.
I'm well aware that there are certain expectations, formed by decades of playing games that established, cultivated, and enforced them.
Roughly, they can be summed up as:
- you're a hero (i.e. an individual capable of handling any task, especially if it involves violence)
- all tasks are scaled appropriately even if a game doesn't support level-scaling (see the Baldur's Gate's level 1 assassins), thus you're never really in danger; even when you're stopped by bandits demanding money, you know that you can easily defeat them.
- the quest givers don't lie to you and as a rule don't pursue any hidden agenda; plus they are nice and kind people and not dicks like your boss at work.
- being Good is better and more rewarding than being (an) Evil (shit)
Overall, it's pretty much the opposite of what real life is like. Now, I understand that heroic fantasy and wish fulfillment exist precisely because real life is like that. It's nice to be a hero for a change, it's nice to be appreciated and praised.
I'm not saying that heroic fantasy sucks. It doesn't. I'm saying that it's not the only way.
You're condescending. I came with an open mind (and already had a walkthrough with a loremaster). I didn't ask to be a hero, I didn't ask for the triumph of Good vs. Evil, and I didn't ask for a pat on the back. All I asked was a fair chance of success, something the game does not provide in the first quests.
AoD is a different game, with realistic characters and motivations. It requires some adjustments.
And this is why I believe you are being unfair,
and are doing it on purpose.
You are well aware that it requires some adjustments, yet you don't give the players any time or any chance to adjust.
I'll repeat it again : I'm not complaining about the difficulty, I'm complaining that you are unfair. If you know it takes some adjustments, then you should give your players the time and the chance to adjust. In the loremaster's path, they have it ; in the mercenary's path, they don't.
I disagree. Yes, the first reply is "wouldn't say no to a few coins" - NOT to the innkeeper's carefully worded proposition but to the idea of making money on the side. It's a cautious reply that fits a mercenary.
I understand your point, but I still think that you lure the players into a trap. I believe giving a second option, like "
I'm listening, but I'm not sure I will like it", would give the players a better sense of role-playing by offering them options instead of forcing them into one.
Then the innkeeper explains the details and the game gives you a chance to say no (i.e. to play a man who doesn't accept offers that sound fishy). If it happened to you in 'real life', would you accept such an offer without reservations? I doubt it. The ONLY reason you accepted it is because games taught you that it's SAFE to do so. Go and crack some skulls, make some money, have some fun. That's how it works in 99% of RPGs.
I accepted because it seemed to fit the character and because I taught the game would be fair to me by not making me fail twice in a row.
You said it yourself : it takes some adjustments to play AoD. I accept that, but you can't rely on forums to explain it, you need to show it in the game. And this is a good place to show it.
For a player just starting the game (i.e. a player that is not yet familiar with your game, its world and its philosophy), it's not that clear that this is risky business,
and it's definitely not clear that refusing a quest might be a good way to "complete" it. By giving a more appropriate dialogue option, like : "
I'm not stupid enough to think I can intimidate Cado in his own den", you would tell the players that it might not be a good idea to accept (and make them learn something about the game's world), while the actual option ("Next time") tells nothing. You would also reinforce the impression by giving skill points right after the players refuse the offer. That way, they know that refusing was not a failure.
I taught you were deliberately luring us into a trap by making the acceptance of the quest more appealing then the refusal. Now, I see that it may not have been deliberate. By using dialogue options similar to the ones I suggest, you would make the refusal more appealing than it is right now, and would not give the impression that you (the developers) try to lure the players into a trap. With these options, it becomes evident that it's the NPCs that set the trap, not the developers.
This is not only about making the players feel better, it's about giving them feedback on how they can play the game (because they don't know yet since they've just started). It's about removing some possible confusion. It may seem silly to you because you already know your game, but it's not. Making it clearer that the world is dangerous and that refusing the quest is a good and valid option is not hand-holding,
it's about properly introducing the players to your game, its world, and its philosophy. It's about giving them a chance to adjust.
The way it is now, you don't introduce your players to the game and its philosophy, you throw them in the lion's den, and then you blame them if they don't understand why you're doing it.
We don't look at the quests the same way you do. The way I see it, you start with a quest where a trader just died and you can kill the assassin (and be rewarded for it) or let him walk away. Then you get an optional quest where you can fight two thugs (and be rewarded for it) with an optional objective to save Vardanis IF you're a natural born killer.
That's how you see it, but that's not how every player sees it. The game doesn't *start* with the trader's death: the players see him arrive and are asked to protect him, they are even offered a chance to prepare themselves by visiting the merchant. They are assigned a job – a mercenary's job –, so it's normal that they see Gracius' death as a failure.
However, I'll repeat it again, because it may have been lost in all my other comments : I have no problem with the merchant's death, I wouldn't change a thing here (except maybe give the option to visit the merchant
after the assassin's fight, since it doesn't really makes sense that the mercenary comes to the inn unprepared).
And I wouldn't have a problem with the Vardanis quest if it came at another moment. My problem is that both come right after the other, right from the start, before the players have the time to familiarize themselves with their character, with the game or with its world.
I'm not complaining about the difficulty or about the NPCs behaviour.
I actually think it's a quality that the NPCs can lie and double-cross the players. However, it's not the NPCs that decide the order in which the quests are given to the players, and they don't make the learning curve: it's you and your team. And, that's my main grip, you start the game by giving impossible or next to impossible tasks, and, by doing so, you confuse the players because you offer no learning curve. You are asking the players to have prior knowledge or experience of the game before they even start it.
Based on what criteria? Feng doesn't claim that Cassius is a horrible person who deserves to be killed. He makes it clear that he wants him dead because he sees him as a threat (which doesn't make Cassius an actual threat to Feng as he mentions that Antidas thinks that two heads are better than one, i.e. he wants to have two loremasters).
So your decision is a simple one - are you the kind of person who can kill an innocent man just to do Feng a favor?
I'm tempted to talk to Cassius because I'm offered an option to think about it. And if I want to think about it, it's in order to gather information. If you want to make the decision as simple as "would I kill an innocent or not", I believe you should remove the "I'll think about it option" and only give "Yes" or "No" options.
I can tweak the wording so that Feng tells you where to find Cassius AFTER you agree to kill him. That would probably make more sense.
I believe that doing so, and removing the "I'll think about it option" would be good ideas.
If the game lets you continue after you fail to do what *you* think was the goal, does it really matter?
If the game ends the moment Vardanis dies, then it is indeed bad design. Fortunately, the game doesn't and that's the only thing that matters here.
I surely can't tell you what *you* had in mind when you designed the quests. However, I can tell you that by starting the mercenary's path the way you do, you can confuse the players about *your* goals. They can be led to believe that you can lure them into a deathtrap just to teach them a lesson (don't try to be a hero), that you can assign them impossible quests, etc. It certainly made me doubt I could finish some of the subsequent quests, up to a point where I wondered if it was worth it to try other strategies or if I was just wasting my time on them. There is a huge difference between "
I can do it, but it's gonna be difficult", and "
Can I do it or am I just wasting my time?" I don't have a problem with the first one, it's the second one that bothers me.
I'll repeat what I wrote earlier : You are well aware that it requires some adjustments to play AoD, yet, in the mercenary's path, you don't give the players any time or any chance to adjust. With the way it is designed right now, you need to rely on forums to explain your philosophy to your players. You shouldn't need that, it should be explained in your game.
@Couchpotato : Don't give up on the game. My first walkthrough was with a Loremaster, and I had a blast. On that walkthrough, I never felt that the game was unfair or confusing. It was pure fun !
@GothicGothicness : Thank you for taking my post so seriously. Why the hell did I wrote a 1000+ word post, when I could have sum it all up with "Give me a God mode, quest-markers, plus an Instant Killing Sword of Doom".