I disagree about this. Yes, in theory it's only the perception of control that's important, and making the players believe they're in control, while in reality they're going to end up where you want them one way or the other, would be perfect.kurita wrote:should ether be rigged to end in the way wanted
But in practice.... Nevrax has tried this several times, and every time what I heard from players was mostly disillusion and a feeling of being cheated. Trying to make your players believe the game has a level of choice that it doesn't have, doesn't speak of much respect for your players. It sooner creates a feeling of "how stupid do they think we are?" amongst them.
Obviously you cannot give the players complete control, but you can give them control over some things. I'd rather the devs be truthful, and the things that are outside our control are clearly outside our control while the things that are presented as being inside our control are actually inside our control, than the devs constantly making us think we're in control only for it to be revealed later that we were being led around by the nose.
That probably means the control we'd get would be limited to occasional binary choices that don't effect the storyline at large, but there's nothing wrong with that. The PCs are only a small group of homins in a larger civilisation in an even larger universe, so realistically a lot of things would happen completely outside their control.
As for continuous changes, such as spires, I agree they should be selfregulatory in such a way that the closer the situation gets to an extremum, the harder it becomes to push further in that direction. Limited control, but not complete control.
And sorry for dragging the thread back up, but I find the topic too interesting to let it die off so quickly.
