Message-ID: <3D7A1E03.5060706@csi.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 11:40:51 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: [CONTENT] Puzzle fairness
References: <Xns927E49EEAB383joaomendesnetcabopt@194.65.14.158>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1031412680 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (7 Sep 2002 11:31:20 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 76
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net!not-for-mail
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:108392

Joao Mendes wrote:
> Hi, :)

As usual, hi back!

> I've been pondering puzzle fairness as applicable to story-centric games
> set in realistic modern-day settings.

Heh...Again...?

> It strikes me as unfair to implement puzzles with the only solution being
> something that the PC simply would never do if (s)he were a normal person.

You're going to have to define "never."  It's going to mean different
things to different people.

[...semi-clever removal of spoiler...]
> Now, put yourself in that position. Would you really
> break into the office or would you go away and come back later? Or perhaps
> track down the man some other way?

Given the situation in question (effectively stranded in a town that
seems to hate you at first sight, without help), yes, I'd probably do
exactly what was required in the game, assuming I found the means to
do so "cleanly."

> Any thoughts?

One major thought that I don't think has been mentioned to this
point.  How is requiring that I find a solution compatible with
*your* ethical values any different than requiring that the solution
involve breaking some particular ethic?

I mean, one thing that shouts, "this is a game," to me very loudly is
a response to an action like, "you would never do that!"  Err...
Obviously, I would.

In my opinion, you can get away with this maybe once in a game
without it being annoying.  And, even then, the PC has to be fleshed
out well enough that it's a sensible reaction *and* the response has
to be more than just "no; that's wrong"--humor being a decent way to
ease this approach.

Mostly, though, I think the solution to such things is to disallow
actions by not putting the PC in that situation:  If you hand me a
gun in a game, I'm eventually going to get frustrated or bored enough
that I'll try shooting everything and everyone.  Telling me, "that's
naughty," is just going to frustrate me enough to quit, in all
probability.

Now, as to the particular puzzle you mention:
[spoilers]













I actually suspect that the lapse in ethics (which progresses through
the entire game, you'll notice) is indicative that the PC was being
affected by the Verlac curse, as well.  After all, without the PC,
there's all sorts of spots where Michael's progression into a "true
Verlac" would've been stunted.

(He wouldn't have gotten into the house, since he was "trapped" in
his reading, probably couldn't have gotten to the basement altar, and
very likely would never have located the doctor, among other things,
had the PC not been snooping throughout the town.)

