Devious Followers - Continued

[SkyAddiction]

36 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

I think one thing that's missing right now is a natural cycle of pressure and relief.

It becomes boring when the DF just puts more and more pressure, and even more boring when they don't really put any.

 

I want to add some cyclic mechanic that progressively ramps up pressure on the PC, and then when it starts to bite, slackens off and makes things easier.

But over time, the pressure could get more and more severe.

 

Then once you fall into enslavement and get out, it should reset.

 

 

It might make sense to link this to city visits (which are usually to sell), with each visit cranking up the pressure until you have to take some number of deals, then it backs off.

With each cycle you need one extra deal to get the follower to start to ease off for a bit.

 

 

I'm coming around to a more nuanced idea of how deals might work.

...

 

That's actually quite elegant; especially if the pressure involves payment increases because it always eventually deflates the PC's wealth no matter what the player level or state of the modded/unmodded economy.

[Balgin]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:04 PM, Lupine00 said:

I think the idea of bankruptcy as the "word" for that mechanic is not very immersive Skyrim

I think Thrall or Serf are the most appropriate terms you should consider.

[user9120975435]

23 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

So many interesting posts. I can't really respond to all that.

I find some of it reminds me of my joke post about Sexist Skyrim (I think it might be on my blog)

 

Oh god, that is the one thing that always bugged me about Skyrim is all those women whining about how bad they have and that all the men are pigs. It's like Anita Fucking Sarkeesian was one of the script writers for dialog or something.

Completely ignoring that Skyrim is out of the most (unrealistically) feministic societies.
 
- The second-in-command of the imperial army is a woman?: Nope, we'll ignore that, it conflicts with our agenda and victimhood mentality.
- The King of Skyrim is actually a woman?: But... but, but, patriarchy! Oppression of women!
- Skyrim has almost as many female Jarls as it does male?: Gods, no, we can't let that get out.
- Several powerful bandit leaders are actually women?: God no, don't you know we women are only treated as cattle and don't have any power or agency of our own, you sexist pig???
- You say there are so many female shop owners and vendors?: Nah, they must be just a front for their Masters aka husbands.
- Both sides of the war have plenty of female soldiers?: It's not 100% female army so women MUST be oppressed and marginalized!

 

Then you go and take a look at the whining women. The "men treat women like cattle" does nothing bug nag her husband all day because of a sword with which his father fed his family and accuses him of letting his wife and daughter starve (why then she doesn't move off her lazy ass and get herself a job to improve her family's finances?) and then turns out she ignores that very daughter that she uses as blackmail and threat material, in favor of drowning herself in romantic fantasy books (where the hero no doubt treats the heroine the exact way she accuses the men of Skyrim doing, yet here she loves it).
Braith: "Mother? Can I talk to you?"
Saffir: "Not now, Braith."
Braith: "But..."
Saffir: "Not now, Braith."

 

Braith: "Mother?"
Saffir: "What?"
Braith: "I wanted to ask you something. It's about a boy..."
Saffir: "Not now, Braith. Go... go ask your father."

Another woman who speaks with reverence to the player that maybe some day men will fear the female player sent her lover to death over some tree syrup. And the list goes on. While OTOH I am actually yet, after 8 years, to see an outright discriminatory anti-female treatment of women by men in Skyrim due to misogyny while women hate on men freely and call them by animal names. There's a far bigger argument made in favor of misandry, racism and bigotry in this game than misogyny.

 

For a society that is somewhere in the middle ages it sure has a lot of 3rd wave feminism raging around inside it.

 

Sorry, I had to get this off my chest, it's been building up for 8 years.

 

On 12/10/2019 at 2:24 PM, HexBolt8 said:

Deal idea:  Proper Recognition.

 

The deal's purpose is the DF's gratification and your humiliation, and to motivate the player to Do Things without cash being a necessary goal.  

 

Here the use of some kind of fame/NPC-reaction-to-fame framework is absolutely necessary. Sexual Fame, Relationship Dialog Overhaul, Sexlab Relationship Dialog System, etc.

 

The best and most evolved would be RDO, but is quite script heavy iirc. Yet it delivers on exactly what is needed and what is lacking most in Skyrim: actual consequence for the way you play Skyrim. The problem is that it's not Sexlab ready, a mod would need to be created to act as a bridge between it and Sexlab.

 

You want to play a bandit and prey on innocent merchants? Okay, just be ready that no merchant will be willing to deal with you? You wanna slut your way through a town? Okay, get ready to be thrown out of town by either the guard or a mob of angry wives (like it happened to Honey in Hormones). You were caught having sex with a horse outside of the town's stables? You had entry-ban and disgust by inhabitants coming, you animal. You acted in a way some NPC doesn't like? Okay, just don't expect him to be happy to see you anymore.

 

Decent, upstanding citizens won't want to have anything to do with a loose, slutty and immoral player.

 

This is what DF would fit perfectly in and that is perfect for your ideas of NPCs prefering the follower and thinking the player is just some useless git.

 

On 12/10/2019 at 2:24 PM, HexBolt8 said:

If you clear an area or loot a boss chest, you can tell the jarl how the DF saved your life (doesn't matter if that really happened).  If the hold needs a hero, look no further than the DF. 

 

If you entered gold control or exceeded a debt threshold, you can tell the jarl that you have trouble managing your money, but fortunately the DF does that for you.  Maybe the jarl should put the DF in charge of the treasury.

 

If you killed a dragon, you thought the battle was hopeless but the DF slew the creature while you were downed.  The DF should be known as Dragon Slayer.  (If playing as the Dragonborn, it seems that you're just a receptacle for dragon souls, but you're not very good at killing them.)

 

Hell, this would be perfect for the follower to humiliate the player. Treasury badly needs to be filled up? Send the player trussed up out on the streets to earn some money with her holes.

 

Follower serving Jarl for a day and can't follow the player around? Tie the player up somewhere or limit her to the Jarlhouse and maybe she has to be there for Jarl's applicants to empty their balls into.

 

The player is useless at slaying dragons? Empty her inventory, especially armor and weapons (she doesn't need them after all) and fill them up with dragon bones and scales to carry for the actual dragonslayer...

 

Instead of going full Rambo on the bandits with the pit-wolf fighting ring the DF could barter friendly entry into the place (with weapons confiscated and ability to draw hands in combat removed from player for maximum compliance) and use the player to make some money through bets by having her fight in the arena. Maybe those wolves wouldn't kill the player, but use her. It would definitely be a funny addition to the female bandit comment from Sexist Guards about wolves filling her with fleas (or something like that).

 

18 hours ago, Zagzaguel said:

This might sound pretty drastic but

seeing how many (minor) bugs and flaws there are and how... "hardcoded" this mod is (Cant find a more fitting word for what I mean here) 

also how the general persception of this mod changed through the last couple of months

I wonder if such making the mod from scratch might be less work in the end than fixing the current one

 

As I said it sounds pretty drastic but there are a lot of minor things that could be improved to make the existing events feel less stale and create new things that would help out the mod that currently arent possible or are just not worth the effort

I agree with hexBolt that a follower just trying to get you down to 0g at all times makes the whole game feel stale and seeing the issues with changing anything on that, it might be at least worth considering.

You could try to work in the ideas of your other mod then as well. Im sure having a less greedy and more emotional follower would be a welcome change 

 

 

Altough granted, I really dont know how much work this would be

 

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I think one thing that's missing right now is a natural cycle of pressure and relief.

It becomes boring when the DF just puts more and more pressure, and even more boring when they don't really put any.

 

I want to add some cyclic mechanic that progressively ramps up pressure on the PC, and then when it starts to bite, slackens off and makes things easier.

But over time, the pressure could get more and more severe.

 

That's an excellent idea.

 

However another thing that is needed are more random quests like the pony-girl, straitjacket, etc. to keep things interesting. Also, some way for the petsuit from the deals to have a negative consequence for the player of making canines amorous. After all, a naked girl is crawling around in breeding position and here you have the dumb, horny species that will hump even legs of chairs and people, much less a living being in that position...

 

 

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I'm coming around to a more nuanced idea of how deals might work.... snipped

 

That's a great idea. Maybe also potions that have different effects?

 

 

 

There is also the idea that I'm really warming up: at some point the DF would take charge and actually become the leader and the player would have to follow them (being able to move only so far away before being teleported back to DF), thus the roles would be reversed to highlight the change in power balance. Maybe the two run into some ruins or barrow and DF decides he/she wants to investigate them to earn some money...

 

Or maybe the player is owing money and DF decides to rent out the player to do menial work in a town or village, chop wood, catch fish, saw lumber and so on...

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, Balgin said:

I think Thrall or Serf are the most appropriate terms you should consider.

I avoided those as they had culturally specific and inappropriate meanings, albeit largely lost now.

 

1 hour ago, user9120975435 said:

Oh god, that is the one thing that always bugged me about Skyrim is all those women whining about how bad they have and that all the men are pigs. It's like Anita Fucking Sarkeesian was one of the script writers for dialog or something.

Completely ignoring that Skyrim is out of the most (unrealistically) feministic societies.

Perhaps it's fair to say that in vanilla Skyrim, the women do play up their victimhood, while living in a society that appears startlingly feminist in outlook.

However, you have to overlook the anachronisms in Skyrim, just as you overlook the nonsensical economy, the world the size of a postage stamp, the modern political thinking, the muddled up jobs like "guard" ... not simply soldiers but also some kind of police? It goes on and on. There is no point addressing this stuff. Skyrim is made of it. There are also orcs, and elves, and magic that isn't simply rubbish, but some kind of science that really blows stuff up.

 

You can get mad at it, but it's like shouting at the wind.

 

I'm not quite sure what @user9120975435 thinks about my Sexist Skyrim concept, and whether it offends his sensibilities. Let's not rant about it here ok? Maybe do the raging on the blog, where the actual post is or something?

 

 

I'm keen myself on this follower as boss thing, what with having been evolving the idea for over a year, etc. Whether it makes sense to do in the DF we have? I don't know. Time will tell.

 

And yes, random quests are great, but they are typically time consuming to make too, and I don't want to get bogged in them while there are so many bugs and problems to fix.

 

All the debate is interesting, and I'm loving the ideas coming up, but in the mundane world, I need to do rote chores like sorting out what new scripts have to be added to the distro, and then I can move on to doing the EFF support. Tonight, I just played Skyrim. Because I felt like it. I really want some of the fatigue features, and maybe deal cost effects in my game too, but it will still be a while. Follower framework support needs sorting out. It's not a huge amount of work, but stuff like updating the distro creation script with a bunch of new fragment filenames is exceedingly dull.

 

[justbob2]

A question about tail textures:  The tail part is fine, but the plug is showing up with that purple color that indicates the texture is wrong or missing.  Are these textures included in Devious Devices Assets (DDa-3.0e), or do  I need to add something else? (I'm using the 4.3 versions of DD Expansion and DD Integration)

 

EDIT:  RESOLVED -  I removed and reinstalled DDa-3.0e, then updated DDe and DDi to versions 4.3a, and the textures were fixed.

[Balgin]

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I avoided those as they had culturally specific and inappropriate meanings, albeit largely lost now

 

I'm not sure how you could consider either term to be inappropriate. A thrall would be the Old Norse term for a slave (Anglo Saxon: Theow). They were not permitted to wear shoes or shirts. Neither were they permitted to own a sax (large knife/dagger). A man wearing a shirt and carrying a sax was a free man (and, as such, he would bear his sax at all times to display his status). If you can't imagine the word thrall being appropriate for Skyrim of all games (with it's heavy viking influences) then you're really going to struggle finding alternatives.

 

A serf would be an Eastern European who's taxes and rent are so prohibitively high as to render them effectively a slave struggling to get by. These seem the most appropriate terms for Skyrim. Most of the alternatives feel anachronistic.

 

These words are not nice words. They have nasty connotations (especially if you diverge off into related words like Enthralled or Enthrallment which are more to do with a state of mind, submission, and mental domination). They are culturally appropriate for Skyrim 'though. A thrall is essentially a slave whereas a serf is a wage slave. But perhaps you did not mean you found the words inappropriate for Skyrim but rather that you found them inappropriate for the kind of situation that you wanted to set up.

 

Now, if you wanted to imply the player has more freedom than a thrall (and you'd really hope they do) then perhaps Bondi as, in this case, they certainly would not be one of the Fyrd. From Bondi you could move to Bond Slave (which almost feels out of place) or take a step sideways to Indentured Servitude/Indentured Servant which feel much more Roman/Imperial and, again, don't quite belong. It all depends on the kind of feeling you want to create and what you want the word to stand for.

[Darkwing241]

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Accept deal = get money immediately.

Once the deal hits its pay off duration, it starts to add discount percentage. You have to keep deals past basic duration to get a discount.

Discount caps at a limit based on number of deals you have.

If you pay off a deal, the discount continues for the pay off duration, even though the deal is gone.

If you get the deal back during that time, you keep the discount.

I like this idea.  It keep the functionality of taking deals during desperate times for quick cash. but also encourages you to live with them long term.

 

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

You can ask for a particular deal, but you don't get any cash payment, just the discount. Time limits apply normally as above.

I always imagined a "pick one of two/three offers" kind of thing.  It seems a little more far fetched that an innocent girl would say "Hey I will call you myself a slut if you give me money, you know... like as a joke for your amusement."  But if the follower offers several choices you get that same functionality of player choice with better believably.  It would give it a bit of a "truth or dare" kind of feel.

 

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Each day you have the follower, cost per day increases by an increment. This resets if you take enough deals at once. But each time requires one more deal.

After each reset the increment itself increases.

Is this worth the effort of changing from the current pay increase per level system?  I currently use a fairly steep payscale to give my games the 'time limit' feel. 

 

 

[spyke123]

Finally got around to the potion quest. Been reading alot about it here but never triggered it myself before...

 

I have one big issue with it... and it is not that it becomes booring like someone has said here, I actually like that aspect of it and the situation it puts you in.

 

My devious follower is always a female, and my issue may seem small to most people here but it is a dealbreaker for me. The animation picked does not suit the dialoge… Been triggering it some 15-20 times now and every single time it is a blowjob animation that gets picked. Is it supposed to do that ? 

[user9120975435]

4 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I'm not quite sure what @user9120975435 thinks about my Sexist Skyrim concept

 

Sorry, my rant is completely unrelated to your idea (which I support btw.), it's like I said something that's been annoying me for 8 years and finally couldn't hold it in anymore and it blew out of me.

[user9120975435]

Btw., is there any difference in content between today's update and the one from November, just this one being fomod?

[Guest AthenaESIV]

I had the previous 2.06 version. Does the 2.06 fomod version just add the fomod on top of the 206 patch notes? Should I just wait for the eventual 2.07 and keep the non fomod 2.06 for now? Thanks!

[HexBolt8]

On the PC consenting to becoming a "follower" or slave, I agree that consent is important.  I personally see a difference in tone from SkyAddiction's examples, which feel like the PC is being badgered into consenting.  It seems more consistent that the DF be sly and use persuasion, presenting an offer as better than it is.  Point out that the way the PC has been screwing up, the only thing keeping some slaver from swooping her up is the DF.  So why not make it official and become the DF's slave?  As long as you wear the DF's collar, you're legally protected from enslavement by anyone else.  At least you know the DF has your best interests at heart, and you want to be safe, right?  And no one expects much from a slave.  You won't be a failed adventurer any more, you'll belong to a successful adventurer!

 

Lupine00, I like your concept for a pressure and relief cycle.  If possible, I'd like to see that extended to forced deals, so the DF has periods of being more demanding and less demanding without that necessarily being linked to gold.  I also like your idea for a follower with a romantic interest in the PC.  Even though that's not in the plans for DFC, I could see that as a worthy far-future addition, a DF who just wants to make sure that no one else can ever have the PC's affection, whatever it takes.  Actually, with a toggle and some alternate dialog lines, some of the flavor of that might not be hard to add. 

 

I agree that DF solicitation will (sadly) have to remain simplistic.  If it stays simple, there might be other opportunities to use forced solicitation in DF.  Also, if people don't mind some self-enforcement, a deal could exist to compel the PC to raise X amount of gold periodically through solicitation.  The DF would tell the PC when to start (such as when entering a city or tavern), and the player would use whatever prostitution mod is installed to earn the money (the self-enforced part) before reporting back and turning the gold over to the DF.  You'd have the immersive aspect of being told what to do, with the freedom to use the prostitution mod of your choice, and without much effort needed in DFC.

[user9120975435]

11 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

On the PC consenting to becoming a "follower" or slave, I agree that consent is important.

 

Personally I like the PC making choices thinking they will be easier and better only to find herself in deeper water than she would've been if she had taken that first choice, much more interesting. Also her being tricked is good. I like seeing how deep into the hole the PC can dig herself into with full agency yet still against her will.

[SkyAddiction]

33 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

On the PC consenting to becoming a "follower" or slave, I agree that consent is important.  I personally see a difference in tone from SkyAddiction's examples, which feel like the PC is being badgered into consenting.  It seems more consistent that the DF be sly and use persuasion, presenting an offer as better than it is.  Point out that the way the PC has been screwing up, the only thing keeping some slaver from swooping her up is the DF.  So why not make it official and become the DF's slave?  As long as you wear the DF's collar, you're legally protected from enslavement by anyone else.  At least you know the DF has your best interests at heart, and you want to be safe, right?  And no one expects much from a slave.  You won't be a failed adventurer any more, you'll belong to a successful adventurer!

 

That works too. It's less about the examples used and the language involved and more about what they, as a concept, have to offer. Is it a useful structure? Does it make the mod easier to build out? Does it make more sense to the user? I was hoping to spark a bit more conversation around that, since the language used in the mod can be crafted however Lupine wishes. 

[HexBolt8]

22 minutes ago, Zagzaguel said:

Doesnt that require the game to realise where gold is coming from? Doubt that the game actually differs between "gold through sold items" and "gold through prostitution"

Nah, it's part of the self-enforcement.  Gold is gold, so DFC won't care where it came from.  Sure you could cheat, but do you want to?  I suppose the DF could graciously "hold" your gold for you when you start soliciting (it's not as if that outfit has pockets) so that you start with zero, which would force you to acquire the gold somehow, but that's extra work and easily avoided by selling something.  My thought was to keep the implementation really simple so at least we could have it.  That much room to cheat maybe wouldn't appeal to a lot of players, but it'd do the job for me. 

[HexBolt8]

11 minutes ago, SkyAddiction said:

That works too. It's less about the examples used and the language involved and more about what they, as a concept, have to offer. Is it a useful structure?

I was going to edit my comment to remove mentioning you by name so it didn't look like I was picking on you, but I was too slow.   Yes, to me a conversation with the DF is a natural way to handle the proposition.  Keeping it between the PC and DF (not involving a "magistrate" or the like, except by verbal reference) keeps things simple. 

[SkyAddiction]

24 minutes ago, HexBolt8 said:

I was going to edit my comment to remove mentioning you by name so it didn't look like I was picking on you, but I was too slow.   Yes, to me a conversation with the DF is a natural way to handle the proposition.  Keeping it between the PC and DF (not involving a "magistrate" or the like, except by verbal reference) keeps things simple. 

 

I'm pretty hard to offend so no worries, but yes - I think it's an interesting structural take to discuss. 

[legraf]

3 hours ago, SkyAddiction said:

 

That works too. It's less about the examples used and the language involved and more about what they, as a concept, have to offer. Is it a useful structure? Does it make the mod easier to build out? Does it make more sense to the user? I was hoping to spark a bit more conversation around that, since the language used in the mod can be crafted however Lupine wishes. 

Personally, I quite liked the "contractual" nature of your examples, SkyAddiction.  And it's simple enough to use your examples consensually - just add one line of dialogue: "You, the inept one... sign here, right?"  Of course one can choose not to sign, but if one does, that's one very explicitly giving consent to the consequences.  It's a nice touch, and a fun interaction for a couple of significant shifts in the relationship.

 

Though I'm not 100% devoted to "consent" here either ... the DF should be able to do some things without, as is currently the case for stealing/selling items or forcing gold control when the player isn't living up to their end of a deal (as interpreted by the DF).  Other things like a bit of spanking punishment or other minor and brief consequences for transgressions also shouldn't require explicit consent for every little thing.  The player is being squeezed into a tighter and tighter situation through their own choices, yes, that overall feel is important.  But part of that situation is giving up more and more control over their actions too (which is why I'm so excited by radiant quests or insisting on prioritizing one quest over another, or any other way for the DF to influence how the player chooses to carry out their general Skyrim play).

[SkyAddiction]

2 hours ago, legraf said:

Personally, I quite liked the "contractual" nature of your examples...

 

I clearly do as well and my stalled follower mod partially works that way, but it was more about the structure. 

 

Currently, DF/DFC progresses through deals for quite a while, then... suddenly slavery! And slavery is what? It's a bit more irritating and actually quite a bit less punitive. While I get the idea behind the construction, it's not particularly intuitive. As a new user, it's probably hard to define how the mod works. As a frequent user, I found it hard to keep track of precisely where my PC stood with the mod when I got stuck in a series of failures in the game, or at least not without doing some mental calculations.

 

So instead of that, what if the evolution of how the player is treated had some form of structure? The example I put forward (which got lost in the examples ) was supposed to be something like this: 1) Multiple level 1 deals and repeatedly low willpower lead to the "wage contract" at first. This enables the level 2 deals. 2) Multiple level 2 deals and repeated willpower crashes lead to the "slave contract" which enables level 3 deals.

 

That's not the set-in-stone proposal, just the structure I think would be interesting. It doesn't matter if there are actual contracts, staged deals, or some other mechanism. It doesn't matter if the stages enable levels of deals, which levels, or even if there are deal levels involved, it's the idea of stage progression. You could, for example, have level 1 and 2 deals, then the wage system with level 3 deals, then a whole bunch of events for slavery, and have the entire "contract" system be conversational and be deals themselves. It's less important than if the idea of staging and progression is important for players to have a sense of structure and progression, and if @Lupine00 sees value in being able to develop that way.

[Lupine00]

13 hours ago, user9120975435 said:

Btw., is there any difference in content between today's update and the one from November, just this one being fomod?

No.

The 2.06 FOMOD version is just 2.06 with a FOMOD. I didn't even make it. I did repack it from a zip to a 7z through, which knocked a chunk off the size.

It's still much larger, probably due to a large .png formatted screenshot in it.

[Lupine00]

10 hours ago, AthenaESIV said:

I had the previous 2.06 version. Does the 2.06 fomod version just add the fomod on top of the 206 patch notes? Should I just wait for the eventual 2.07 and keep the non fomod 2.06 for now? Thanks!

See above. If you already have 2.06 the new upload does nothing for you. You'll need to wait for 2.07 for any new fun stuff.

[Lupine00]

9 hours ago, Zagzaguel said:

 what about an EC+ integration? 

EC+ is "fire an animation where the PC is raped by a plant or a goo, gets pregnant with Chaurus eggs, grows huge belly and boobs."

It's an event, for sure, but where would it fit with DF?

I don't have any gripping ideas for that.

 

While it would be interesting of the follower could conjure up an EC+ attack for you on purpose, and use it to punish you - which would be a bit Queens Blade, I guess - it is a bit on the harsh side. Also, I think for it to be fully joined up, the follower should want the eggs afterwards, and get mad if you don't hand over enough of them. It's in the "new content" basket, so first: frameworks, debt/will mechanic tweaks, LDC bugs, scanner fix, and then new content.

 

In my game, I use EC+ as a sort of alternative to DCL just now. Also ES+. I have SLD set up to give extreme penalties for large belly, and some serious penalties for oversized boobs. The result is that a pregnancy makes adventuring impossible. Income stops. It's harsh if you have a follower, which I'm obliged to have at this time, as I can't leave gold control, and couldn't leave town without one anyway.

 

5 hours ago, legraf said:

Though I'm not 100% devoted to "consent" here either ... the DF should be able to do some things without, as is currently the case for stealing/selling items or forcing gold control when the player isn't living up to their end of a deal (as interpreted by the DF).

This is true, but there shouldn't be too much out of control stuff. It feels like a railroad, not your fault. I think it's fear of that railroad feeling that stopped Lozeak putting in self-increasing payments.

 

Rather than have a maguffin that explains why the DF can make silly demands of the PC, DF relies on the PC agreeing in advance to things. But when the rules are changed, the PC usually has to agree. There is one clear exception, which is enslavement. It happens with no consent, and during enslavement consent is not asked for. However, it requires a very low willpower to occur.

 

Mostly, it feels better if the PC agrees, but the point of low willpower is that it becomes hard to refuse requests. This is one point where willpower matters.

 

2 hours ago, SkyAddiction said:

So instead of that, what if the evolution of how the player is treated had some form of structure?

I think Lozeak wanted more unpredictability. It made it more varied if you didn't always get the same level 1 deals, then all the same level 2 deals and so on.

You can make a more coherent piece of it if the deals are always given in a logical order, but there's also a downside that it becomes very same-same.

 

Different people want different things. I was thinking myself that a more controlled structure would help in some ways and allow for more customised interaction between deals. A few people seem to be interested in the idea of creating more structure in the PC-DF relationship and putting names on stages etc. My own follower concept was based around a clear, fairly linear progression towards (or away from) total capitulation and dependence, in ten well-defined steps. Some people aren't going to like that linear progression, others crave it.

 

DF clearly has two progression axes: willpower and debt, and so a simple linear path will not work. Instead of a line, we have quadrants, and thinking about that space and what the quadrants should look like in ideal is probably helpful from a design perspective.

 

 

Something I find that player homes sabotage a lot of DF "fun". If you have your own house, it reduces your expenses, but that's the least of it. Sure, they are places you can stay for free, but most importantly, a place to cache spare gear, gold, and keys. When bad things happen, you return home and wait it out, use your keys, etc. Homes make things a lot easier.

 

Fixes include increasing the price of them, particularly Breezehome, which is cheap, SLS evictions, and removing the homes from sale altogether. Presumably one could invent other mechanics too.

 

One of the strengths of the boss-follower is that you don't get a home, the follower gets one. You definitely wouldn't get your own chest. With SLS stash mechanics, this would make the PC more dependent on the follower, and make bad events harder to recover from. You could probably tone a lot of those events down as a result. Another strong point with this is that there's a powerful immersion factor that comes from not having a safe place... That going into the DF's home is dangerous; a situation where you might find yourself completely at their mercy; and which might continue indefinitely at the DF's pleasure.

 

I'm not saying I'm doing anything about player houses, but they're another thing on my mind, and place where DF could do interesting things, whether we have boss-follower mode or not.

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, Zagzaguel said:

Is that possible for custom homes too? 

I usually use custom ones from Nexus. Altough usually dont use houses to store a few trillion keys and gold anyway 

 

Having your follower bossing around in your own playerhome would still be an intresting thing even if not 100% immersive as the containers would still belong to you, which by skyrim logic makes this home your own

As it's a completely imaginary feature ... sure ... of course it is possible!

 

More seriously, there's no great technical obstacle to supporting mod-introduced player homes, and conceivably even locating their containers then changing their ownership to a neutral NPC and locking them. To what extent the player would need to help this process along ... I don't know yet.  It would need a detailed examination of popular player homes to answer that. I think some custom containers may be very special, and some may not be containers in the Skyrim sense but activators that open a remote container, or a invisible race NPC, or who knows what?

 

Easiest of course is not to use player homes. I never used one. I don't see the point, unless Srende, Kimy, Delzaron or Monoman made it  Then it would probably be a suitable home for one of my characters.

 

Supporting any homes at all would be the first hurdle ... and delivering some content there.

 

Perhaps the ideal solution (by which I mean in some crazy utopia) would be custom homes purpose made for DF.

(This is certainly something I considered long ago).

[HexBolt8]

9 hours ago, Zagzaguel said:

It would probabaly be intresting to have thinks like this be part of the mod as its a scenario that differs from the current once and slightly changes the flow of the game but Id do a few things to make it a bit harder to "cheat" to motivate you to do the things as intended. Things like:

- Your entire inventory gets cleared during the quest (only at the beginning)

I see your point, but if the enforcement gets complicated it interferes with prostitution mods.  RP wants the player in "working clothes".  If the PC gets stripped, I'd have to console in an outfit, then use the console again when the PC's stuff is returned so that I'm not carrying 2 outfits.  And my preferred outfit has multiple parts, so I'd have to rely on a fair amount of console cheating -- to support anti-cheating.   My assumption is that the DF is keeping an eye on the PC, either by following along or checking in from afar, so an attempt to raise money in others ways would be stopped, not by an actual game mechanic but an understanding that the DF is too clever to permit cheating.

 

I understand that most players want a lot of enforcement.  They enjoy trying to beat the system.  My view is that enforcement quickly becomes irrelevant.  When trying a new feature, the player attempts to circumvent it in various ways, using all the tricks he knows.  If he finds a hole, he reports it to the mod author and asks that it be fixed.  Once the player is satisfied that there's no possible way to cheat, he stops trying.  From then on the enforcement might as well not exist. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I like enforcement; I just don't need it.  Given a choice between having a feature with minimal enforcement and not having it at all because a proper implementation is too time-consuming, I prefer the former.  I think enforcement mechanics work best when they're designed with a chance to be beaten.  Towns have guards, guards won't let you pick a door lock, but I can get way with it if I can manage it when a guard isn't looking. 

9 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

One of the strengths of the boss-follower is that you don't get a home, the follower gets one. You definitely wouldn't get your own chest.

Now I'm going to make the opposite argument, in favor of complicated enforcement, but for a long-range feature that might never get built because it's not that important.  Just planting an idea.

 

I could see the PC being allowed a single chest -- with limitations.  Many follower-friendly houses are designed with a nook or small room for the follower, often with a chest of two.  The PC has the whole big house, but the follower just gets a small area.  I think the role reversal of having the DF as boss is better supported by having a tiny amount of storage rather than zero, just as it feels more humiliating to have a tiny scrap of clothing that doesn't really cover anything than it does to be completely naked.  Maybe the PC stores toys here for bondage fun during down time (would work well with DD Helpers play time) or outfits to wear in town. 

 

For simplicity, make it a virtual chest accessed via the DF, "I'd like to access my chest" when in a PlayerHome location.  The container would need a script to track weight and item types.  With a weight limit, the player would have to decide which spare items are most important.  Keys and gold would not be allowed (or perhaps they could go in the container, but the DF checks from time to time and confiscates them).  Bondage items might not count against weight, since the DF wants the PC to have them.  Complexity outweighs the benefits, so this is just an idea.

[HexBolt8]

Deal idea:  No potion use (a less restrictive variation might allow it outside combat).  Rationale:  DF says you're lazy, and should work on avoiding damage to begin wit, and better manage your magicka.  Implementation could detect item consumption, check for a potion keyword, and compare to a configurable white list (you'll want to permit lactacid and such).  I'm not personally excited about this deal, but I'm mentioning it in the interest of variety.