   RPG: So What If the Evil Overlord Wins?
Imagine that you have the choice in an RPG to undermine or preserve the democracy of a fictional world, with the twist that the change happens only half way through the game. You continue playing the rest of the game with the government you've supported running things, and can even try to undo your choice. What meaningful gameplay changes would you make to contrast the two and how could you show via gameplay that the despotic world is an uglier world than the democratic world?The gameplay tools I can think of are missions, rewards and narrative outcomes. But the problem I seem to be having is that the despotic world sounds like a preferable environment for a heroic character because it gives him something to do (save it). It seems that relying on narrative outcomes alone would be too abstract. So what if the evil overlord wins. The people suffer but the game goes on, and that continuity is what the player's in it for.Worse still, if through gameplay I attempt to introduce negative states (crummier missions and rewards for instance) it becomes harder for the player to work their way back to the theoretically more favorable democratic world.Thoughts?
  Interesting, why have the "hero" try to get back to the democratic world but instead have him cross over to the evil overlords side being the only way to live, thus continuing the game play and then the game turns into evil overcomes good...   ;Quote:Original post by TacoGrandeInteresting, why have the "hero" try to get back to the democratic world but instead have him cross over to the evil overlords side being the only way to live, thus continuing the game play and then the game turns into evil overcomes good...My theme revolves around choosing futures. To whatever extent possible I want to provide different playable worlds. I want to say, "here's a democratic world, see what happens when it turns totalitarian..." or "here's a totalitarian world, see what happens when it becomes democratic."If I try to present threats to democracy, for instance, but the player experiences the same (or even better) gameplay in a more brutal world then it kills the whole point.   ;  If you support the democratic world your primary antagonist could still be those who were trying to make the despotic world. Having lost due to conventional means they have become desperate and have unsealed powers that that threaten to destroy everything and everyone.Alternatively you could leave a loose end that is personal to the main character when the democratic world overcomes the despotic world. Examples being one of the "evil" generals killed his wife and kids or stole something important to him and such. It could explain why the player was motivated to join the democratic government in the first place, because their war would likely lead you to this person. This could also work for the despotic side choice as well, he joins them to get close to this person and exact his revenge. He'd do anything to get to this person. At the mid point he has to look at what destruction his choice caused to the people and determine whether his choice was worth their suffering. I think penalizing the player for only taking the "evil" side for missions really hurts the game overall. For both sides there needs to be perks and penalties otherwise players will always choose the side that will give them the least work for the most reward. Examples of perks for the good side. People are more willing to share information about the world and specific topics(people tend to not like to talk to evil people that much). Free help from law enforcement for specific missions(evil people would be refused or the player would have to bribe them). Discounts from reputable merchants(evil players would have to pay the normal price or possibly even a premium on certain hard to get items). Penalties for good players. Outlaws attack on sight(evil people can sometimes form a strange kinship that will let them pass in peace or even help them from time to time). Possibly have to fight powerful evil creatures(evil people are more likely to set loose these enemies upon the good than have the good use the evil or other powerful creatures against them). Now for some evil perks. Able to hire mercenaries known for their brutality. Can collect tax revenue from people under your domain. Access to questionable powers(dark spells, chemical weapons, things of that sort). Political allies who can get you out of paying penalties for crimes committed. Most of the penalties for evil I listed with the good perks to show a better contrast between the two, here's some additional ones. Assassins from time to time would stalk you either for revenge for the people you hurt or political enemies you made. Certain services would be denied such as healing from most goodly serving priests. ...Wow this speculating is so much fun, I love this section of the forums.   ;Quote:Original post by WavinatorIf I try to present threats to democracy, for instance, but the player experiences the same (or even better) gameplay in a more brutal world then it kills the whole point.Perhaps a world of anarchy would bring a brutal world, but this in turn hinders keeping equipment and, say, recharging one's health or aquiring more ammunition.  Prehaps a world of democracy, being more stable, would let you play with bigger guns and tanks.  Whereas a monarchy might involve various questing to win the favor of the king in order to prosper.  Give each future a unique flavor and taste of advantages and disadvantages.   ;Quote:Original post by WavinatorMy theme revolves around choosing futures. To whatever extent possible I want to provide different playable worlds. I want to say, "here's a democratic world, see what happens when it turns totalitarian..." or "here's a totalitarian world, see what happens when it becomes democratic."If I try to present threats to democracy, for instance, but the player experiences the same (or even better) gameplay in a more brutal world then it kills the whole point.OK, I see what is possibly a remnant from the Cold War here.I just want to point out that Democracy != Good and Totalitarism != EvilSome nations among history have done very well with other forms of government other than democracy.RememberDemagogy is the enemy of DemocracyTyrany is the enemy of MonarchyOligarchy is the enemy of AristocracyAuthoritarianism is often the enemy of ComunismThose are often degenerated forms of government from their original, ideal state.And some societies, just don't go well with Democracy and/or Monarchy, because they're used to other forms.Definately a society used to monarchy will see democracy as evil, and vice vesa.Unfortunately this is complex problem that remains unsolved today, so it will have to be simplified.But if I see a game where monarchy is (unjustified) seen as evil, and democracy as good (even though I'm personally inclined for democracy) I would be somewhat pissed off.Well, this is all I wanted to say.CheersDark Sylinc   ;  Another thing to remember is that a hero isn't about looking good or evil but rather doing what's right regardless of looking good or evil...in other words your hero could take on the form of a terrorist or something that the player roots against but if you make the game engaging enough and the character good enough I'm sure many people would play and love the game even if you lose in the end   ;  Why make it black and white, democratic (good), undemocratic (evil).What about if the player has some affinity to certain element within the world, eg. town or village beset by thugs, and wants to find a means to best protect them. Maybe a benevolent 'despot' ruler that strictly adheres to a rule of law would achieve the ends quicker and more effectively than the meandering of a democratic system, where popular support needs to nurtured and built (this is seldom down by righteous means in the real world, spin, negative campaign etc.), in which time the village has long sense died or become a haven for said thugs.;  Will the governmental system be central to gameplay, or more of a background thing?  Can the player give that element of the world a cursory treatment and let the NPC politicos take care of it, choosing instead to pursue a life that only deals directly with them on occasion?  I'm thinking of Firefly here, where the adventures only deal with the government during flashbacks or when their lifestyle brings them into contact with officials.I'm a little nervous about the idea of the government crystalizing "halfway" through the game.  It seems to me that either it's a changable system, in which case it would always be in a state of flux (or potential flux) or else it's a fixture of the world.  Having a major gameplay element ("Choose the New World Order") get "finished" with a lot of game left would be a jarring shift in the game environment.  PLayers who really get into it would feel like they had to go play a different game all of a sudden, and players who don't like it would have to suffer through the first part or--worse--go on GameFaqs and find out how to min-max that mini-game so that they've got the best possible world when the "real thing" starts in the second half.I remember one of the old Japanese Fire Emblem games let your heroes fall in love and produce offspring that would fight in later campaigns, so the "best way" to play was to use the first few battles as dating sims to get the right hookups and guarantee the badass warriors are on your roster in the second generation.  It was an annoying disconnect for me, since I like tactical turn-based fights, but if I spend the first half of the game dealing with the unit movement and tactical deployment that I love, I wind up with a random army in the second half, so I feel like I failed and have to start over and move my mage from a place where she can provide adequate cover fire into a position where the knight can see up her dress.   ;Quote:Original post by Edge DamodredI think penalizing the player for only taking the "evil" side for missions really hurts the game overall. For both sides there needs to be perks and penalties otherwise players will always choose the side that will give them the least work for the most reward. Yes, good point. What about going as far as mapping certain character traits or abilities to one type of government or another? If you're geared to thrive in a democracy you would likely be motivated to try to preserve it, for example, because the alternative would be a problem for you. You could be a merchant, for instance, that has grown to depend on free trade and strong police. Under a totalitarian regime, maybe you stand to lose a lot of what you've worked for or maybe you'd be subject to corrupt enforcement demanding protection money.Quote:...Wow this speculating is so much fun, I love this section of the forums.Great ideas. Of course, one big problem with both of our ideas is that you would have to experience them first in order to develop a preference-- unless there was some way of telegraphing them upfront (maybe simply through the rules, but that's a bit ham handed). It might be necessary to create a game world where both sides exist at once and give the player enough time in either to decide which should be the winner.