Do actions define the role, or does the role dictate actions?

[rusty_shackleford]

This is a bit of a follow-up on a prior thread after chewing on it for a while.

One of the most extreme examples of a skill-based game that branches depending on your character is Age of Decadence, and it begins bordering on visual novel territory. I'm going to go back to my old punching bag here, but I understand AoD is loved by quite a few posters here, I'm sorry about your taste.
Possibly my biggest gripe with the game is that arguably the most important decisions you make in the game are at the character creation screen. This is to some extent a fault of AoD's writing/design, but it also feels like it may be the end result of any game that overly relies on skills to define a character. The game becomes rigid and unchanging because the character is rigid and unchanging.
There is a bit of a counterargument in AoD itself: hybrid characters suffered from this to a lesser degree. But why wasn't the game designed around this from the start? Why is the default a less interesting game? The way to make the game fun is having already played it and knowing how to break it.

I played Chronicles of Myrtana: Archolos recently, what a fantastic game, something I'd call a near masterpiece. Check it out if you haven't:


But if we dissect the game, we can come to the conclusion that it's a bit of a mashup of Witcher and Gothic 2. Archolos has skills, yes, but they are not something you pick at character creation. They are earned through playing the game, and generally don't lock you out of much content — but instead change your playstyle. Your choices in the game aren't dependent upon a rigid set of skills you chose at character creation, but your own actions during the game itself. Of course there is some content gated behind certain skills, but it's mostly side content.

There could be an argument that AoD's design encourages replayability, but I say that Archolos does it even better. You can experience other ways to resolve quests while also playing the game in a different way in a new playthrough, rather than the choices you make being so tightly coupled to your character rather than your actions.

Even further, I'd say that AoD has it backwards. In AoD, you are an assassin therefore you act like one. In The Elder Scrolls games, you act like an assassin and therefore can become one through the Dark Brotherhood. Or as @The_Mask pointed out,

I think in the malus category is, unironically, every game Josh Sawyer ever made. Because he's unafraid to cut your Priest or Paladin and make them Fallen, if you decide to be ********. And then force you to either reconsider your ways, or continue with a different class.

Similarly, in Gothic games(including Archolos), your choices can determine what skills and such(trainers, …) are available to you.

Am I just picking on AoD here?
No. I think AoD is just easy pickings because of how easily it allows this to be highlighted. The same issue crops up in games like Underrail and so forth. It's as if Baldur's Gate was a rather linear narrative but the narrative you play depends on which class you picked.

I think these two ideas on RPG design are so fundamentally opposed that perhaps they should even be given different subgenre names.

1. Actions Define the Role: In this approach, a player's actions and choices throughout the game determine their character's role. For example, a player might begin the game with no predefined role, and through completing various assassination missions or stealth-based activities, they gradually become recognized as an assassin. This perspective emphasizes player agency and flexibility, allowing players to evolve their characters based on their in-game decisions and experiences.
2. Role Dictates Actions: This approach requires players to choose a specific class or set of skills at the beginning of the game, such as an assassin or skill in ***-***-ining(ehehe), which then influences their playstyle. In this scenario, the character's role is predetermined, and the player is expected to act in accordance with the established guidelines for that role. This approach tends to offer more structured gameplay.

When looking at it from this lens, Geralt becomes less well defined than UnderrailGuy after starting the game.

…Discuss!

[Ratcatcher]

Interesting read. Between this and the pevious thread, you make the distinction quite clear. You're also right in making this distinction, it's something I always pondered when writing for pnp and designing new campaigns. Unfortunately, I think the difference is a bit too subtle for your average, currentyear cRPG enjoyer as to become e proper subgenre, but it can def help in shaping discussions among a circle of conoisseurs.

I recently played Fear & Hunger and the sequel, F&H: Termina. Imagine RPGMaker meets roguelike, if you have no clue about the game design. It's a short, claustrophobic, extremely spoopy and somewhat "unfair" game that relies on you getting slaughtered over and over as you learn how to explore, interact and fight in the almost completely static maps (there is some variance between runs but it's minor).

There is much to be said about both titles, they are definitely unique in the way they play. There are imho two major issues that could prevent some people from enjoying them, one is the author took a number of inspirations from other medias he loves. Prepare yourself for subtle and not-so-subtle references to things like Berserk, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Majora's Mask and more. Second, it's a somewhat degenerate title. To keep this short, each time I finish a sentence from now on, just imagine I wrote "Oh, and also there's a penis." after the period.

Both games have a somewhat middle of the road approach to what you write. Character progression is peculiar, you don't gain xp and are, usually, better off trying to avoid combat, unless there's value in whatever the enemy drops on death.
You can, in both games, get some sort of "currency" from a number of felled enemies that can either be spent like skill points in other games or that opens new avenues of progression for your character. There are also 4 selectable characters (classes) in the first game and iirc 8 in the second. This is a rigid choice and defines your backstory, goals and starting skills, with some degree of customization. Note that the nature of the game makes different characters approach the game world in radically different ways, opening passages and possibilities which are utterly barred to other playables in the beginning but I digress. Just retain there's a LOT of gameplay variety here, not just a difference in stats, they all PLAY very differently, at least at the start of a run.

How it ties down with what you wrote is through the significance of the actions you take during the game itself. I will mainly discuss the first title, as I know the mechanics far better, I ought to return to the second to complete it fully.

Take the magic system. In the game, there are Gods you can increase your affinity with, through various actions. The Dark Priest, Enki, is definitely the most suited character amongst the starting 4 if you want to delve deep into the magic system but since the game is a somewhat Lovecraftian dungeon expedition, he only starts with a rudimentary knoweledge of the occult. No one knows the darkest secrets of this world, each of the 4 characters will be exposed to epiphanies and terrible discoveries as they travel and the way you unlock magic is intertwined with that.
Taking part in an orgy, consuming the flesh of other humans in a beastly feast and sacrificing some random sod you found tied to an altar are some of the choices you can make during your travels, each of those actions will increase your affinity with a specific God and you cannot learn skills and magic (mainly magic) derived from its portfolio until you have a deep enough understanding of his or her or xvir ways.
A barbarian and a dark priest that both take their time to enjoy earthly delights and that don't shy away from unnatural lusts during their travel, will probably end up with a similar asset of skills, if you spend your skill currency accordingly. Point is, if you follow a route of wanton destruction, violence and bloodshed, you won't have that option and instead will be offered radically different skills.

It's definitely different from the pervasive choice-driven skill development of Gothic and the game itself is mechanically too simple to talk about having a proper "role. Although you can have things like a tank, a meat shield or a dedicated caster in your group, the inherent limitations of the engine, reduce the approaches to combat.
That said, the author definitely managed to give it a very unique spin. I often forget I'm playing a RPGMaker game when in combat. All things considered tho, I'd place it squarely into your first category, actions define the role.

Lemme know what you think, if you ever manage to stomach playing it, I know it's not your cup of tea, for a number of reasons.

[Segata]

I'll do a re-thread of what I've said in the chat

One of the most extreme examples of a skill-based game that branches depending on your character is Age of Decadence

The game becomes rigid and unchanging because the character is rigid and unchanging.

AoD in some way needs to be rigid because the playthroughs, beyond the first one, are pretty short and to the point. There's no much room for big changes except for betrayals and so on, which changes your allegiances and narrative path but the core character remains the same in what it can do, so now it depends on what you consider C&C. For some, the character creation screen is where most C&C should be contained, for others, C&C depends on what you do during the game progression.

Even further, I'd say that AoD has it backwards. In AoD, you are an assassin therefore you act like one

But as I've said, you can keep acting as an assassin, or you can become an imperial guard or a praetor mid game by switching allegiances/backstabbing your former guild. Is this not an example of changing C&C? Anyways, enough of AoD here.

Actions Define the Role: In this approach, a player's actions and choices throughout the game determine their character's role. For example, a player might begin the game with no predefined role, and through completing various assassination missions or stealth-based activities, they gradually become recognized as an assassin. This perspective emphasizes player agency and flexibility, allowing players to evolve their characters based on their in-game decisions and experiences.
Role Dictates Actions: This approach requires players to choose a specific class or set of skills at the beginning of the game, such as an assassin or skill in ***-***-ining(ehehe), which then influences their playstyle. In this scenario, the character's role is predetermined, and the player is expected to act in accordance with the established guidelines for that role. This approach tends to offer more structured gameplay.

As I've said in the chat, why not both? My general de-facto intent with games is always Role Dictates Actions, just the intent; I imagine a role in my head, and set out to play the game consistently towards such idea. But also the game might push me at times to the first option, and it might make me rethink a bit some of the preconceptions I've intended to go with, so there might be changes here and there. I do this because I don't know what will the game throw at me so it works as a general approach to first time playthroughs. On the issue of Actions Define the Role: I know you're talking about a more tabula rasa approach from the beginning, TES style, but still. I think the ideal RPG lets you mix both approaches satisfyingly, I think old Fallout is able to provide both things well. In the end it all depends on the game designers' skill, but from a design perspective is easier to steer players towards the second approach exclusively. I can enjoy both options and I think both approaches can co-exist in the form of different games, or within the same game if devs are skilled enough to achieve such freedom design-wise.

[wndrbr]

Both methods are entirely viable.

Personally I prefer single-character RPGs to be classless, so they could give player more freedom of developing a character during the actual gameplay - by making story-related decisions (like which faction to support or guild to join) or simply picking a perks upon levelling up. Even in games where your character isn't a blankslate stat-wise (like the TES series) you still get a lot of leeway on character building, so the race/starting class/primary skills stop mattering after multiple hours of gameplay.

Party-based RPGs have, well, a party of characters. And since the party that can cover all the bases, it makes sense for their progression systems to be more rigid and their roles to be more defined.

Underrail only suffers from this if you play on a meme difficulty for powergamers, on Normal difficulty the game gives you a lot of leeway. On my first playthrough I had a really ****** slapdashed build, and my character was using sniper and assault rifles despite being neither a good sniper nor a good commando. Despite that I still managed to beat the game, and it felt good.

AoD has worst from both worlds - it's a single-character RPG (you can't cover all the bases), and your character is pigeonholed into certain classes.

[Tweed]

Thing is with Archolos and Gothic in general is that you're already prepping for what you want to be as you move along. Two paths in each faction are open to you, melee, or dex monkey. Magic is a side thing that requires a different approach and isn't an "official" path through the game. You have a limited amount of agency on what side skills you pick up, but what you plan to be will influenced or should be influenced by those choices so you're not as free as you think you are.

Underrail skips all that and makes you plan upfront who you are and what you'll do. If you can't get past Depot A, then you failed to make a survivable build and need to start over.

Arena, Daggerfall, and Morrowind took a similar approach with a lighter grip. Yes, you can learn anything you want, but learning skills outside of your primary set takes longer or in the very least costs a lot of money. Mind you, Morrowind is easy to exploit once you know how and you can get all the money you could ever need within the first twenty minutes of the game and if you know what you're doing you'll always be gaining the right stats so you can keep on training all the skills you want.

[rusty_shackleford]

Thing is with Archolos and Gothic in general is that you're already prepping for what you want to be as you move along.

Only if you have meta knowledge. At best you can guess what they might offer based on what they do and who they are.
You wouldn't happen to be a cheater, would you?

[WhiteShark]

There's an in-between option: games where you can choose how to advance as you level. This (like many RPG mechanics) works best in roguelikes where you need to make the best of what you find. In DCSS you can freely* choose how to allot your XP and it's not uncommon to have to specialize in the first good weapon/spellbook you find. It's not Action Defines Role, yet nor is it Role Dictates Action. I think this is really the best of both worlds, at least when it comes to single-character RPGs, though games like Gothic where most advancement is done diagetically are also nice.

*you still need to have an appropriate item to train the related skill

[Tweed]

Thing is with Archolos and Gothic in general is that you're already prepping for what you want to be as you move along.

Only if you have meta knowledge. At best you can guess what they might offer based on what they do and who they are.
You wouldn't happen to be a cheater, would you?

No, I made the decision early on to be a bow/dex monkey so I sank into dexterity and apprenticed to the fletcher, there's nothing meta about it.

[The_Mask]

Alright, let's try to see if I can address this. I'm probably going to end up writing a wall of text, even though I don't want to, but let's see what happens.

First off, there are 4 entities involved in this masquerade: the human playing the game, the designer, the distributor (a.k.a. the guy with the money) and the character on screen.

1. Let's address the player.

Players are vain, and, most of the time, feel entitled. And rightly so. They want to be the hero. They paid for the game. And they split into two categories: with a lot of imagination and with not a lot of imagination.

I've always felt that the class-defined RPGs at lvl 1 appeal to the unimaginative ones. If that's your favourite type of RPG, and you felt offended just now, deal with it.

2. The designer. The designer is a person that implements a lot of work to give you an adventure. If the designer is lazy or lacking in wisdom, they're more likely to implement a class-defined RPG. But not always!

Using Rogue-like features can mitigate the work time, and using smoke and mirrors, you can pull off something greater. To offer perspective: Planescape: Torment has you starting in a class, right? And rather railroads you to work with the Warrior class until lvl 5. This has a purpose: to give you as much HP as possible, despite you maybe choosing to be an multiverse shattering Wizard later on. Smart, right?

3. The guy with the money can dictate how good an RPG is. Sadly this has been the truth since the dawn of RPGs, possibly the dawn of time. There are developers that don't implement a system that would allow the player to define their role better, because they never get the money to. Sad, but true.

4. The character on screen needs to make sense. This is something that people (player, designer and guy-with-money) seem to forget. If you have a young person starting their adventure, it makes sense that they start unexperienced and unskilled, possibly with a penalty to Wisdom (or any equivalent there-of). It *would* make a lot more sense, however, to give more skills AND A CLASS, to a more seasoned adventurer.
This is where the mythical bridge between mechanics and narrative comes into play. Bridge that so many people seem to have forgotten about.

5. Bonus entry, because I knew I was going to write extra stuff: culture.

Yes, ladies and gents, the developer's culture *does* matter. Ever notice how many games made around the world seem to be lacking an attack button? Ever notice how the ones made in the N.A. almost always *do* have it?

Same idea: the culture of the designer influences the measure of restriction on the player/player character, sometimes subconsciously. This should make you always check which country the developer lives in. Not necessarily from a... let's say... patriotic point of view. But more as to know what to expect.

[Tweed]

1. Let's address the player.

Players are vain, and, most of the time, feel entitled. And rightly so. They want to be the hero. They paid for the game. And they split into two categories: with a lot of imagination and with not a lot of imagination.

2. The designer. The designer is a person that implements a lot of work to give you an adventure. If the designer is lazy or lacking in wisdom, they're more likely to implement a class-defined RPG. But not always!

3. The guy with the money can dictate how good an RPG is. Sadly this has been the truth since the dawn of RPGs, possibly the dawn of time. There are developers that don't implement a system that would allow the player to define their role better, because they never get the money to. Sad, but true.

4. The character on screen needs to make sense. This is something that people (player, designer and guy-with-money) seem to forget. If you have a young person starting their adventure, it makes sense that they start unexperienced and unskilled, possibly with a penalty to Wisdom (or any equivalent there-of). It *would* make a lot more sense, however, to give more skills AND A CLASS, to a more seasoned adventurer.
This is where the mythical bridge between mechanics and narrative comes into play. Bridge that so many people seem to have forgotten about.

5. Bonus entry, because I knew I was going to write extra stuff: culture.

Yes, ladies and gents, the developer's culture *does* matter. Ever notice how many games made around the world seem to be lacking an attack button? Ever notice how the ones made in the N.A. almost always *do* have it?

Same idea: the culture of the designer influences the measure of restriction on the player/player character, sometimes subconsciously. This should make you always check which country the developer lives in. Not necessarily from a... let's say... patriotic point of view. But more as to know what to expect.

I don't care about being the hero, I care about being entertained. Bethesderp games make you the hero and they're duller than dishwater without 100+ mods. It really doesn't matter to me either way if the game is fixed class or open template, especially since there's often little difference in the end, but it makes people feel good to have the illusion of choice when they build their thief-type, but with guns instead of gun-type, but with stealing.

"Money drives talent" might have been true at one point, but now it's a huge lie. Some guys working in their spare time release a Doom mod for free that makes recent AAA efforts with "professionals" working round the clock look even more like garbage than they already are.

I agree with you, the character needs to make sense and the universe needs to make sense, but these days writers and developers can't even be arsed to think within the context of their own work and never stop to ask "does this make any sense?" or "why should the player give a **** about this?" and so your players end up with the absolute worst emotion they can possibly feel when playing your game: apathy, if they stop caring about what happens, you've failed as a designer.

Too bad western culture has been rotted inside out and all we can expect now are games that deliver very important messages and disgustingly ugly characters that no one in their right mind gives a **** about.

[The_Mask]

I don't care about being the hero, I care about being entertained.

The rest of your opinions are just that. And obviously, I never claimed my perspective is flawless, but this particular sentence I can "work with" in the sense that the player being a bit vain is not a bad thing. Appealing to the player's vanity can open doors in terms of mechanics, in terms of story-telling, in terms of pretty much everything. It's that thing when we were kids and someone else would go: "I betcha you can't do this, huh!" - "Oh yeah?!? Well I'll show you!" being the automatic response.

There are many tricks you can use to lure the player in.

[maidenhaver]

The role should determine what actions can be taken.

[Tweed]

I don't care about being the hero, I care about being entertained.

The rest of your opinions are just that. And obviously, I never claimed my perspective is flawless, but this particular sentence I can "work with" in the sense that the player being a bit vain is not a bad thing. Appealing to the player's vanity can open doors in terms of mechanics, in terms of story-telling, in terms of pretty much everything. It's that thing when we were kids and someone else would go: "I betcha you can't do this, huh!" - "Oh yeah?!? Well I'll show you!" being the automatic response.

There are many tricks you can use to lure the player in.

Appeal to vanity doesn't necessarily have to be making the world revolve around the hero and a number of games are excellent because the game is entirely indifferent to you or even downright hostile (think Kenshi), but that actually ties into the "I bet you can't" philosophy. Give the player a challenge like a world that hates their guts and they'll try to carve out a place for themselves in it.

Power trips and power fantasy are also fine so long as the progression into godhood makes sense. Let me take a few on the chin and earn my ability to wipe out groups of enemies, don't just hand me a suit of power armor 30 minutes into the game or let me slay a dragon in the same amount of time.

Edit: All this talk of actions defining role reminds me of Bioforge. Your actions in the game determine your identity at the end, but by the time you find out who you used to be it's useless information.

[rusty_shackleford]

Topical, Tim Cain brings this up in his latest video on disadvantages and how they relate to flaws in Outer Worlds.

flaws aren't really like disadvantages
…
disadvantages you buy when you make your character and are required to play that way
…
flaws work the other way
you play a certain way and the game would notice

I liked flaws in Outerworlds btw, their main issue was they were tied to the bad perk system which made them a bit useless because the benefits weren't very good.

[rusty_shackleford]

Yes, ladies and gents, the developer's culture *does* matter. Ever notice how many games made around the world seem to be lacking an attack button? Ever notice how the ones made in the N.A. almost always *do* have it?

God bless America.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't care about being the hero, I care about being entertained.

The rest of your opinions are just that. And obviously, I never claimed my perspective is flawless, but this particular sentence I can "work with" in the sense that the player being a bit vain is not a bad thing. Appealing to the player's vanity can open doors in terms of mechanics, in terms of story-telling, in terms of pretty much everything. It's that thing when we were kids and someone else would go: "I betcha you can't do this, huh!" - "Oh yeah?!? Well I'll show you!" being the automatic response.

There are many tricks you can use to lure the player in.

Appeal to vanity doesn't necessarily have to be making the world revolve around the hero and a number of games are excellent because the game is entirely indifferent to you or even downright hostile (think Kenshi), but that actually ties into the "I bet you can't" philosophy. Give the player a challenge like a world that hates their guts and they'll try to carve out a place for themselves in it.

Power trips and power fantasy are also fine so long as the progression into godhood makes sense. Let me take a few on the chin and earn my ability to wipe out groups of enemies, don't just hand me a suit of power armor 30 minutes into the game or let me slay a dragon in the same amount of time.

Edit: All this talk of actions defining role reminds me of Bioforge. Your actions in the game determine your identity at the end, but by the time you find out who you used to be it's useless information.

The vanity of players is vastly overstated by developers. Many of the consistently popular titles on Steam are games that actively work against the player rather than appeasing their power fantasy.

[rusty_shackleford]

Fundamentally, how does Age of Decadence differ from Arcanum? What makes Arcanum feel like you are free to play how you want, but AoD feels like it places shackles on you?

[WhiteShark]

I haven't played Arcanum, but comparing in my head to other RPGs where I felt free, I think too much content is hard-gated behind stat checks in AoD, to the point that you're mostly locked into whatever content to which your stats correspond from character creation.

[rusty_shackleford]

I haven't played Arcanum

Can't wait for the HQ review!

[rusty_shackleford]

Magic is a side thing that requires a different approach

This is the entire point of the thread and my argument!
If you want to be a mage, you must act like a mage before you can learn to become one. You aren't merely deciding "My character is a mage, therefore he can cast spells." You must seek out someone willing to train you, and if you close this avenue off, you cannot be a mage due to your actions.

I vastly prefer this type of design, and really wish there was a simple name & definition for it.

[MadPreacher]

Magic is a side thing that requires a different approach

This is the entire point of the thread and my argument!
If you want to be a mage, you must act like a mage before you can learn to become one. You aren't merely deciding "My character is a mage, therefore he can cast spells." You must seek out someone willing to train you, and if you close this avenue off, you cannot be a mage due to your actions.

I vastly prefer this type of design, and really wish there was a simple name & definition for it.

What does a mage act like? Isn't that dependent upon the design of the world?

[The_Mask]

What does a mage act like?

Smart. Slightly smug. Rolls 5 unlucky cards in a row. Gets smarter anyway.

In all seriousness, a mage would want to be a pursuer of knowledge. I guess (?!?). Nobody can really answer that question because nobody is a mage in real life.

[Klerik]

Are wiggers *******?

[Tweed]

Magic is a side thing that requires a different approach

This is the entire point of the thread and my argument!
If you want to be a mage, you must act like a mage before you can learn to become one. You aren't merely deciding "My character is a mage, therefore he can cast spells." You must seek out someone willing to train you, and if you close this avenue off, you cannot be a mage due to your actions.

I vastly prefer this type of design, and really wish there was a simple name & definition for it.

What does a mage act like? Isn't that dependent upon the design of the world?

Mages spend their time in the guild or tower or whatever reading books for years and years and years to master their art. Unless you're a PC, then somehow you're able to bypass all that study and get incredible magical power in just a few hours. Although the Gothic universe's mages are quite different in that regard since they also double as priests for the three respective gods and it's more about binding magic to runes than it is in learning magical words.

I guess you're kinda magely in Archolos if you intend to use magic since you need to seek knowledge, but in this case you're trying to find black-market books and leftover runes so I guess that makes you an atheist since you're enlightened by your own learning and don't need no god to use runes.

[MadPreacher]

This is the entire point of the thread and my argument!
If you want to be a mage, you must act like a mage before you can learn to become one. You aren't merely deciding "My character is a mage, therefore he can cast spells." You must seek out someone willing to train you, and if you close this avenue off, you cannot be a mage due to your actions.

I vastly prefer this type of design, and really wish there was a simple name & definition for it.

What does a mage act like? Isn't that dependent upon the design of the world?

Mages spend their time in the guild or tower or whatever reading books for years and years and years to master their art. Unless you're a PC, then somehow you're able to bypass all that study and get incredible magical power in just a few hours. Although the Gothic universe's mages are quite different in that regard since they also double as priests for the three respective gods and it's more about binding magic to runes than it is in learning magical words.

I guess you're kinda magely in Archolos if you intend to use magic since you need to seek knowledge, but in this case you're trying to find black-market books and leftover runes so I guess that makes you an atheist since you're enlightened by your own learning and don't need no god to use runes.

That is entirely dependent on the world. Not all mages require books to study.

[Klerik]

#notallmages.

[Norfleet]

The answer is "Yes". It's a feedback cycle in which actions define a role that defines a set of actions in a kind of Ouroboros. Let us imagine a starting state of affairs where everyone is basically a bard: They do everything, none of it well. Nobody has a defined role, everyone is just an interchangeable unit, and parties are just bard spam. Now let us suppose that one of these bards mostly just heals his partymembers. He had adopted a role, but nothing makes him actually suited for this role. It's just that he does it, and this action becomes his role. As a player, he becomes specialized towards this role even though there's nothing in his character that makes him more suited than others. He just becomes more on-the-ball when it comes to performing this role. His actions have defined his role. Now everyone sees him as this role and he must now do it because it's what he does. Conversely, imagine that such players don't actually know they are all bards, and no one is actually mechanically better than anyone else, but we TELL them they are in these roles. So they do as they are told. The role has defined their actions. Once this occurs, the above process reinforces the cycle.

Of course, one can break free of such a loop, but the result is never pretty. You **** one goat...

[Emphyrio]

What AOD does is forgivable because each game is so short. That same system in 30-90 hour games is **** though.

AOD also has alternate paths when your char can't handle something. In other rpgs if you built wrong and can't win a fight you're stuck. I remember in my first aod game, I couldn't beat the main quest I was on because it required either higher speech or combat skills than I had, but I found a way around it by doing a double betryal.