Dead State - Design Update: Decisions of a Leader

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
This week's Dead State Design Update actually proposes a hypothetical situation, and asks forum members to vote on three different options:
This week, a poll related to the kind of choice you will have to make in Dead State and its consequences.

The Setup

Several people in your shelter have the infection. The antibiotics are rarer all the time and it’s getting harder to supplement the supply with homemade versions. A doctor and scientist in your shelter think they have an idea on how to slow the rate of infection with a non-antibiotic approach. The only problem is that the medical equipment is very specific and can only be found in a hospital. Hospitals were ground zero for infection and are still crawling with the undead.

Only someone with advanced medical training can identify this equipment. If your character specialized in medicine, they could retrieve it themselves, but this is not the case for your current character setup. To fetch the medical equipment from the hospital for this experimental procedure, a doctor will have to go in with you. That leaves space for you and two other people – the doctor has no combat skills. It’s a big risk and not necessarily going to work. There’s a chance you could lose your only doctor, which would surely hurt morale, yet if the procedure works, it would boost morale in the shelter. The doctor knows the risks and wants to take them to help people.

The Decisions

Do you:

Option 1 - Decide it is too risky and deny the operation. A few may die from the infection and the doctor and other leaders will lose some respect for you. Continue business as usual.

Option 2 - Risk it, knowing you could lose a doctor and others for the sake of helping your infected allies. Success is higher morale, more time for the infected, and respect of the doctor and other leaders.

Option 3 - Convince people to stick to antibiotics and step up the production to counter any shortages. This will slightly hurt respect with doctors, but leaders will support it. You will have to put most other projects on hold while all resources and ally hours are spent on increasing antibiotic stock.
More information.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Option 3 a small hit in respect from the docs and a stockroom full of antibiotics. Guaranteed success without too much risk in the long run. Might have to take a harder mission to make up for time lost on other projects, but a mission where my doctor wouldn't be put at risk. I'm guessing they are hard to come by in a zompocalypse.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
This game is really going to happen isnt it !?? Its seems strange in the days of watered down RPGish, Biowares folding like a cheap suite to Microsofts DLC . Dead State is looking like sunshine in the dark days of gaming.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
576
Option 3. It seems a good compromise with an acceptably small disadvantage.

I sure hope this game sees the light of day. It's been a long, dark night for an RPG fan.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Again the problem of the traditional saving/loading system in RPG's shine through.

If that is fun for gamers then why not? I do it, but I'm trying to save/reload less than I used to.

That is what I really loved about The Witcher. You had to stick with your decisions because you had no idea what the effect would be later. Also that is what intrigues me about Frayed Knights. Jay is rewarding you for sticking it out with bad rolls/battles with drama points. It's that little bit of incentive that I need to not reload after every failed conversation or battle in which I got spanked.

Truth be told it's not really just an RPG problem. Strategy games have this little "cheat" in there as well. If your army gets hit hard then reload and try again. In some games like X-Com you have to do this sometimes. Especially after you had your whole team wiped out by a carefully placed grenade (those dang things were waaayyy too scary). But in others like Majesty 2 you could, if you wanted, just keep pushing on even when some of your best characters were just turned into BBQ by a ravenous red dragon.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
If that is fun for gamers then why not? I do it, but I'm trying to save/reload less than I used to.

Well, in the above case.... it ruins the choices quite a bit IMHO. Because what most gamers are going to do is choose to go with the doctor to the hospital because they know they can save and load if it fails. Thus there is no real sense of danger or risk. Every single game which didn't have traditional save/load mechanics was always a lot more exciting and engaging to play for me. For shooters it made for example dark forces a looot more fun to play.

The witcher has a kind of solution where you don't know what your decisions would bring in the future.. which prevents you from saving loading every decision.... still that also make it so you often can't make an informed decision at all.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Truth be told it's not really just an RPG problem. Strategy games have this little "cheat" in there as well. If your army gets hit hard then reload and try again. In some games like X-Com you have to do this sometimes. Especially after you had your whole team wiped out by a carefully placed grenade (those dang things were waaayyy too scary). But in others like Majesty 2 you could, if you wanted, just keep pushing on even when some of your best characters were just turned into BBQ by a ravenous red dragon.
I wonder if thats true only for the strategy games that are more tactical in scope such as X-Com or Panzer General.

Im currently playing strategy game called War in the East and I have been thinking if I should reload or restart the game because "i might have lost it allready". But the game's scope is so grand, it has so many variables, that Im not sure whether Im loosing or winning.

Germans are 150 miles from moscow, its later summer and Im loosing around 200,000 men each week, but that does not necesserily mean a loss, because there are countless other factors too that influence the outcome. I have to play to the very end of the game to know whether im loosing or not.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Well, in the above case…. it ruins the choices quite a bit IMHO. Because what most gamers are going to do is choose to go with the doctor to the hospital because they know they can save and load if it fails. Thus there is no real sense of danger or risk.
Then make every choice equally compelling.

There's a reason why most gamers are going to select that choice and I don't think it's exclusively because they can reload.

The problem here is that there seems to be one choice that will wield greater 'rewards' one choice that feels like quitting and a compromise.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
693
But the choices wouldn't be like that if you couldn't save and load... since you would actually risk losing your doctor?

Equally compelling choices is not as fun. The thrill of taking a risk for a greater gain is what is exciting IMHO.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Back
Top Bottom