I loved reading this and getting insight into how the narrative will operate! I think the approach is a good one.
Spoiler
Now let’s temper some expectations: Factions will come into play, the player will interact with prominent figures from most of the factions, but we’re not making players swear loyalty to them as part of the primary storyline. That said, having a commission or extreme reputation with a faction one way or another will impact certain situations.
Imo that is the best way to go about it. The narrative becomes too messy otherwise since a lot of the choices a player likely has to make won't make sense under that context. If the narrative is built to that context, the amount of complexity becomes too high and effectively creates a "you need multiple endings representing each narrowly defined path" constraint that would quickly become unmanageable.
On the other hand, I like that this sort of thing isn't
completely ignored either. I was hoping that would be the case to some extent. If not, then part of the illusion of an "alive world" is lost. This segues into:
Spoiler
How about instead we assume the player’s space captain is a generally competent person. Then instead of locking out options based on skill restrictions, let us take a positive route and allow the player choose the way in which they excel at the time of the choice as it comes up naturally in the dialog. Let the player lie and send a fake cryopod to the mercenary demanding they hand over the VIP, giving the player enough time to make their escape – AND take a finders fee of 20k credits from the merc. If that’s who the player wants their player to be, that is.
Speaking of alive worlds, I respect the decision to avoid skill checks as skills are already hard enough to balance without that extra nuance thrown into the equation. Nevertheless, I think it is fairly imperative that on some level the sector
reacts to the personification of the character archetype in some way that is outside the scope of the narrative. It's definitely a start to have different paths to solve a specific problem, but if nothing actually happens from those choices other than a brief alternate dialogue sequence and a differing mission object? Well... the roleplay scenario kind of loses the sense of meaningful impact through player choice. Player choice will be present, sure, but it needs the other side of the feature - lasting consequences/implications from that choice.
As an example that I'll put in spoilers just in case it happens to be too close to an actual plot arc or something:
Spoiler
Luddic Path world is causing trouble for the sector at large and something must be done. You the player can:
A) Talk them down from further aggression.
B) Station a blockade to prevent anyone from leaving the planet.
C) Pay pirates/mercenaries to increase their raids on the planet and distract them.
D) Invade with your forces and capture the planet yourself.
E) Use Tri-Tachyon's Planet Killer device and blow the world out of the stars.
The Player chooses E.
Now, if the next time the player stops at the local bar on Tartessus and his contact goes "Hey what will it be this time, Han?" instead of standing in shock/outrage at the appearance of the infamous butcher of Chalcedon then it is going to feel really weird.
Obviously that's an extreme choice that warrants an extreme reaction and not every choice is going to need such things to be believable. But you see what I mean. A player's chosen archetype only goes as far as the sector's reaction to that archetype. Even small things like a brief addendum to a planet's description based upon consistent choices in the narrative really,
really help sell the illusion.
The above concept is what I think skill checks were originally designed for. It is a way of simulating reaction to archetypes by enabling/disabling options based upon prior choices. It is very possible to do that without marrying the skill system and dialogue though. It just has to be approached from opposite side of the concept. A good but over-the-top example would be Fable's notoriety/morality system.
Warning: me just rambling mostly off-topic below this point.Media created purely and cynically in-anticipation-of or in-reaction-to viewer feedback is generally… bad (and is absolutely a certain level of Hell for any creative person).
Yes, yes 100% yes! This is one of my biggest pet peeves with media narrative alongside mindless, pointless shock and awe brutality tactics just to get people talking about it. It's a cheap way of using the medium and is almost always painfully transparent. So too is knowing what your viewers/typical genre audience expects and deliberately doing the exact opposite in order to tote around the idea that you are "genre defying."
Trying to be vague here but *spoilers* maybe? - (Unrelated to Starsector)
Spoiler
The Red Wedding worked really well because it was a carefully interwoven culmination of well-written and fleshed out individual narratives that centered around a fundamental ongoing event. The beauty of the twist there is it pulls the rug out from under all of that in a way that not only shocks you and makes you care about the characters even more, but also provides meaning and drive for the following scramble of choices that ensues from all those narratives being suddenly cast adrift from what seemed (to the audience and the actual characters alike) like a foregone conclusion.
In short: The senselessness of the event is ironically the driving force for the rest of narrative. It makes a powerful statement and you genuinely don't see it coming because it's so against the norm of a traditional epic.
Juxtaposition that to the part in the second Aliens vs Predator movie where:
Spoiler
the token hot girlfriend suddenly loses her plot armor and its forgotten about 2 seconds later
That not only did literally nothing for the narrative, but it practically screams "Look at me! Look at me! I'm an
anti-trope trope! I'm a good movie, darn it!" (It wasn't.)
