Traits effect on decision making.

[Sam L]

Not a bad idea, but to prevent too much determinism and the tendency the player may have to kill its own ruler, maybe just a few handicaps/incentives could be added. Something like that your "coward, weak-willed and amiable King" would require a higher warscore to demand compensation on an equal than a "vengeful, proud, stubborn, reckless King" and such. I suppose this dynamic could be coded in the traits.txt file like: "weak_willed = { demand_compensation = 2 } meaning the warscore needed to ask for that in a peace settlement for a ruler with that trait would multiply for 2, so it'd make it a lot more difficult to happen and would help the AI to choose other more feasible and perhaps peaceful peace options. Just saying.

I prefer this. I want traits to have consequences for others, not for the human player making decisions. If you handcuff the human player, the game becomes too deterministic and it will play itself. I.e. it will become boring.

 

[Sute]{h]

I'd suggest that every character is given a hidden stress factor. Chosing options going against their traits should increase the stress factor, while indulging their traits decrease it. A high stress factor should increase the chance of getting nasty psychological traits or commiting suicide. That way it becomes a soft encouragement rather than a hard one. Players can have their characters go against their nature, but the character will become increasingly frustrated.

 

[randomwalker]

there is a possible underlying issue that divides opinion here: best words I can find are normative vs descriptive traits, or directly/indirectly affecting traits.

Normative/direct: traits represent your personality (or your physique) and should *direct* your choices. (The weak-willed king should demand less compensation, going against your traits stresses you).
Descriptive/indirect: traits represent how others see you, and are a mostly a *consequence of* your choice. (the weak-willed king should get a new trait when he makes the outrageus demands). In turn, the others' perception changes their loyalty etc.

The 'reality' seems to be neither. Losing the bastard trait doesn't change your DNA (it is actually a descriptive trait), whereas sickness very directly influences your abilities. The chaste trait influences fertility (directly restricting actions...) and piety (via the perception of the church), etc.

Since i can't make up even my own mind on what traits "should be", i don't see an easy answer to this discussion.

 

[Sute]{h]

Excellent post Randomwalker. Fact is that some traits in CK is descriptive while some is normative. My ideas only cover normative traits.

Of course then we have to define which is which... but really that could be left in the hands of the scripters. As a thumb rule most personality and physical traits fall in the normative category in my mind. Titles and other externally imposed social labels like excommunication or bastard is purely descriptive.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

...

...

Fundamentally, any idea that incorporates the notion that it would "act as handcuffs on the player" should be approached very carefully. Odds are that it is an exceptionally bad idea to let enter your game design since few players like being handcuffed or having their options shackled by forces outside their control.

Especially as traits were not necessarily traits rather than alleged attributes. Illegitimacy ("bastard") is obvious. But another example would be Cowardice. You could gain that trait simply by having rumours spread about you. So a trait is not necessarily what you are, but also encompasses what people say you are. In that regard, the handcuffs would be even more odious.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

Goal achieved. At least people started talking about it. I agree some people have suggested better ideas than mine. I'd definatly like to see more effects of traits. If people dont like having the occationak bad ruler that causes the downfall of their empire, well they should be playing EU3, Vicky or HOI.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

So it seems adding more incentive to follow the "tendencies" and more deterents to not following them is necessary.

Just wondering, did anybody else feel traits did'nt play enough of a role in CK and CKDV or am I alone in that regard?

Ammedum to my previous post:

I should have said most traits represented tendancies; some traits did represent absolutes. Those of the latter were:

• Celibate
• Any illness
• Any education *
• Any injury
• Any inbred trait
• Sunni/Shi'ite
• raised by parent trait
• Excommunicated
• Hetetic **
• Crusader ***

* Absolute enough for game-mechanics, although I'd dispute the noble education branches should have been treated as such.
** While it was used in abosulte terms, it didn't differentiate between the types of heresy which did matter during this time period.
*** While it was used in absolute terms, it didn't represent what a Crusader really was, ie someone who actively crusaded and spread or protected RCism by force of arms.

Thus there would be a few who would have some absolutes. An excommunicated character would never chose to go on a crusade unless it (all but) guaranteed the removal of the excommunication.

How about instead of traits limiting the number of choices, CK2 should allow certain stats and traits to unlock extra decisions for events, for role-playing goodness!

It amounts to the same thing.

Fundamentally, any idea that incorporates the notion that it would "act as handcuffs on the player" should be approached very carefully. Odds are that it is an exceptionally bad idea to let enter your game design since few players like being handcuffed or having their options shackled by forces outside their control.

Isn't the lack of such no game because there are no limits to anything where only a person's ego determines how far they'll go?

Even if the answer is "no" there are people do like to have a challenge (albeit one they feel they can overcome). The trait stacking and CKV's stats combined with the way the game engine worked did not make for a fun game for most people after a few generations because of all the uberstats characters and what they did to the game. That's a casestudy of how not handcuffing a game - imposing caps for max stats in this case - can lead to players having less fun.