no need to take it so literally, I even air-quoted the word "sense"
I thought you had a point that was worth addressing.
giving the girls flowers doesn't make them "like" you, it makes them believe you are their true love
hell, anything short of incarceration makes them believe you are their one true love
Sure. That's what I mean about compromise. If the game was to try and model the full complexity of human emotional response, it would be huge. So we have to take a few shortcuts. It's like making a map - you don't do it at 1:1 scale.
and "sense" is pretty subjective here
to sgb, it makes sense for the slaves to be unable to refuse an order, while to Bluebeholder the opposite is true
and they are both valid opinions
And it's important to recognise that. However that doesn't mean that "common sense" isn't a useful benchmark, so long as we recognise that we're talking about a consensus rather than one individual's opinion.
That said, unless we get individual opinions, we never get a chance to determine where the consensus lies. The bottom line is that you can't throw out an argument purely because it appeals to common sense, any more than you can because it violates the same.
you shouldn't go into this with the idea that it should make sense, but rather how it will affect gameplay and entertainment value
to sgb, the sensible approach is "without a player personality the logic has to lean towards 'what's most likely'", to me it's "let the player decide what the play wants"
Hard to argue with the principle there, but it is kind of tricky to establish in advance, though. And consistency and observing the principle of least surprise are generally things that software users do want. So there is a case for modelling reality.
I would prefer if all restrictions were minimized, if not outright erased, and instead introduce consequences
"you know that slave you made a matron? well she doesn't fear you all that much, and she helped some slaves escape. oh, and that was 3 days ago, we just found out. so no loading"
Hmmm... I if I tried something like that, I'd expect complaints about how I was trying to force a particular playing style on the player. I think restriction is something else that has a significant subjective element. Or maybe it's just a case of direct vs. indirect restriction. Do we prefer to forbid an action outright, or is it better to make the action so punitive in its consequences as to make it effectively worthless? There's a place for both approaches, I'd have said.
For instance, you could do away with the restriction that you can't go overdrawn at the bank and replace it with consequences. Maybe the bankers try and have you killed, with assassination attempts becoming more frequent the more you owe. Is that really better? Certainly it's a lot of code that doesn't really add very much to the game. Or we could go for a lessdramatic approach and add a system of interest charges, and repossession orders ... but that ends up more complex than the assassination approach and is even less fun for the player.
On the other hand, you can just stop the player from taking out more money than he put in. The bank then behaves as people expect banks to behave, and everyone is happy.
