In the case of Mass Effect and Dragon Age, part of the pitch of the game is the ability to replay it to see the different choices play out. This is more true in Mass Effect than in Dragon Age, since Dragon Age felt the need to invalidate player choices all the time. While you can certainly play however you want, the game play and story are tied to the decision-points. There are always exceptions, but I’d wager a fair sum of money that most people had a good playthrough, a bad playthrough, and a concept playthrough. The system supports this with additional content, no matter your choice. Which is fine, but the division of the content parallels the morality choices. If you are seeking to experience the full games, the only choice you end up making is what you end up wanting to do first – for the majority of people, at any rate.

All tabletop advice comes down to know your group. I don’t think that doesn’t mean people should read and find what might work for their groups, if they are looking.

Anyway, this appears not to be for you, and that’s totally cool.

I usually play CPRGs with an eye towards internally consistent behavior. In the Mass Effect trilogy, my Shepard had a “take no sh-t from anyone but mostly do the right thing” attitude. For instance, I was willing to negotiate with various people but if they started mouthing off I wouldn’t back down from a fight or would suffer the consequences of not backing down. This seemed to give me about 2/3 Paragon and 1/3 Renegade in all three games. I might have had more game mechanical bennies had I been super consistent to the path the designers wrote, but to me my enjoyment comes from picking a particularly play style and sticking to it. In general I don’t play “dark side” type games, though. I generally find that I just don’t much enjoy even vicariously taking those kinds of actions.

As to presenting players moral dilemmas in a TT environment, this is a case of “know your group.” Some people really enjoy that kind of moral and emotional exploration and some GMs can make it happen. I do enjoy that sort of thing, but I’ve played with folks who really don’t and there have been times when the emotional bleed has crossed my lines too. Someone I played with a while ago had a job that gave him the runaround a lot. He really couldn’t deal with having runaround in the game and once said “I get enough of dealing with a—-les like that already.” I know for myself I’m reasonably tolerant of moral dilemmas, but there are some, particularly of the “choose how you lose” variety that really get me. I’ve experienced enough of those IRL to not find them enjoyable.

I can say, as a player in the game in question, I personally don’t think this is accurate. In fact, a couple of these moral situations only came to the forefront after we went back and thought about it.

When establishing the setting and our characters, we created a direction to help guide our way (i.e. rebuilding our estate and increasing the honor of our family). If a moral situation appears in the middle of us doing something to that end, we sometimes tunnel vision. I don’t feel like we are put in a position where there is no right answer, we ARE however put in positions where we need to make decisions to either reinforce our current path or refine the path to meet our current needs.

Honestly, I love the fact that we are given choice and the fact that unless we, as the players, emphasize a situation, our morality in that decision is ours to pick up and shoulder if we choose. Colin does not force the morality onto us. (In fact, the escorting the trapped being in a box thing didn’t even click with me until I read the article).

Your reaction to Priscilla is perfect, actually. That moment is all about proving what provides you – the player – with your moment of catharsis and release. You decided that all you wanted to do was get out of there, and leaving Priscilla unharmed was fine. You felt relief. That’s a good thing.

It’s not about that at all. It’s about providing players situations where the only ones who are judging their decisions are themselves – good or bad. They get to prove to themselves what type of people they are without any greater implications than their own character arc.

You can certainly run any type of game you want, and that is right for your table. There are plenty of examples of providing these moments of character introspection in entirely positive and upbeat environments and stories, after all.

(My in-game heel realization came in Deus Ex:Human Revolution. Getting those frightened emails from your colleagues – people who depend on you, who outright thank you and say they feel safer with you around, who gave you get-well cards – asking you to look into who’s been stealing stuff out of their offices…holy crap, did I feel like scum.)

Kinda wish I could be in a D&D group that did this kind of morality questions. I try to play my characters that way, but the DM tends more towards the comedic (making calf-eyes at being a Killer DM), and half the group is relatively inexperienced. We’re less likely to frustrate him by sudden pangs of morality, and more likely to frustrate him by taking over the BBEG’s lair and turning it into a resort/B&B (woulda worked, too, if the planet hadn’t blown up).

It felt like maybe it did that job too well (disconnecting from not just key figures, but the world itself – aiming for low-key despair, but overshooting into apathy). That, plus some serious immersion-breaking mechanics…I could honestly rant for a half-hour, but I’ll resist the urge, and it sounds like you probably either know or can guess anyways. ^_^

I will say the one moment where DS1 sloughed off the emotional distance did feel incredibly satisfying, partly because it was so unexpected (let true dark be cast upon the world)…and ironically, DS2’s ending did exactly the opposite!

The intentional disconnection and distancing you from the key figures in the story is a crucial part of the framing of Dark Souls 1. You should care expressly because of your condition as an undead losing humanity and going hollow. You are attempting to discover what happened to the Lords who have seemingly abandoned the world they have set into motion, and making decisions based off of incredibly skewed perspectives and information.

It’s a cold, distant, alien approach to storytelling. I absolutely love it. However, I also really love the drilled-down, humanistic approach that Dark Souls 2 took. The stories of the Lords are revisited on the small scale, down to the Frozen Kings and Priscilla. It’s actually brilliant, but it’s incredibly different.

In short, I understand why people love and hate both entries. 🙂