What makes a good story in cRPGs? - thoughts and musings

[Cahir]

Ever since I started to play computer role playing games, I evaluated my enjoyment of those games by the quality of the story. The more crpgs I played the more I started to contemplate, what exactly is this mythical "story"? Is it an actual story - events that unfolds during the course of the game? A plot that reveals itself the more you advance the game? Or maybe there is more about it? Maybe the setting itself, how it's presented in game, constitutes to a story? Recently I watched few episodes of BG2EE blind run of one of the respected Twitch streamers and it hit me. I realised which part of the game must meet my expectations, that I could say the "story" is great. And I was surprised by this realisation.

Now, let me list a couple of things that I feel constitute to a "story", a general term I usually throw to assess if the game is awesome or not. The number of the listing is relevant, the first listed are the ones that I feel are a must for me for a good "story".

1. Writing - yes, this is a big epiphany for me. Watching this BG2EE stream made me realised how damn good writing this game has. Even after all those years, it didn't age a bit. I haven't played it in ages and I forgot much of it already, so this hit me by surprise. Then I recalled my failed attempt to play Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen last year. I read the story is pretty decent and the game is really worth a shot, but as soon as I started to play it, I realized that writing is atrocious. It almost looked like the game was written in another language and was machine translated to English later. I couldn't get past it, it completely stripped my enjoyment of following the main plot. Adding two plus two together, I realized I cannot enjoy a game with a decent main plot, if writing doesn't meet my standards. It doesn't need to be top of the top, but it cannot make me cringe.

2. The main plot - this history told in cRPG is the second most important thing, that makes the "story" good for me. The sooner I get hooked with the events that my protagonist got involved into, the better. But that's not mandatory - if the mystery reveal is slower, but the build up itself is exciting, the result is the same. I have enjoyed games with rather underwhelming main story, but I don't think I enjoyed games with underwhelming writing. This is the most important part of my recent epiphany.

3. The setting and the lore - The setting is also an important part of the general "story" term for me. I'll write about this topic in more detail in another post, when I have a chance, but now it's suffice to say, that there is a good chance the game will pique my interest, if setting and its lore will interest me. And maybe more importantly, not just the lore, but the way it's introduced to me.

NPCs and side characters - the games that had memorable characters were usually at the top of my ranking of beloved crpgs, but in reality it's not the most important aspect of the "story" for me. I also enjoyed games that didn't have exciting persinalities. I very much like party interaction, banters and NPCs rich backrounds, but it's like a nice addition for me not something that could strip me from enjoying the game.

Side quests - I realised there are not that many games where side quests are no worse than the main story. Very few studios can write excellent side quests. And it's OK, I, played a lot of games where side content is significantly inferior to the main game events and I still enjoyed them.

So, what makes a story good for you? What *is* the story exactly for you? Is it just one thing, or a group of game aspects? I'm looking forward to read your thoughts about it.

 

[m7600]

I agree with all of your points, and I would like to mention something about BG2 specifically. The way that Irenicus' dungeon was designed is brilliant to the point of being exceptional. And by that I mean that very few games have achieved that level of design for their Prologue / First Chapter. Not even Planescape: Torment has an initial dungeon with that level of quality, even though I believe it has a better overall story/setting/writing etc.

I'm not talking about the dungeon's layout, its battles, quests and that kind of stuff (although those things do play their part). I'm trying to pinpoint something that's a bit more subtle, and more difficult to put into words in a clear way.

Think of it like this: you start trapped in a cage in the villain's lair, and the person who frees you from that cage gets captured by the villain at the end of the Prologue. This happens after she tells you (when you reach Irenicus' library) that she's scared, and you promise her that you will protect her. But you've failed to do so, because she gets kidnapped, which means that you couldn't keep your promise. This is the developer's sneaky way of telling you: "You can't let Irenicus' get away with this, this is personal now! You made a promise, don't break it! You must rescue your friend!"
And that, if you ask me, is an amazing storytelling skill. By doing these little subliminal tricks that they sprinkle throughout the Prologue (but without you being 100% conscious of them), they get you to become emotionally invested in the story right from the start... And that means that you'll keep playing the game!
And even if you're roleplaying an evil character that doesn't care for Imoen, you're still given the option, when speaking to NPCs, to say "I don't care about my friend, but I want to have my revenge on Irenicus for locking me up in his lair." And if you choose that path, then that means that you still want to keep playing the game. Either way, you're hooked on the story from now on.

And that's just one example. But there are many other elements of Irenicus' dungeon that are designed to get you hooked on the story and, by extension, on the game itself.

 

[Cahir]

I agree about Irenicus dungeon, it's really well done. I haven't played much of BG3 past the initial dungeon, so I can at least compare those two and I must say, the design and the tone of Irenicus dungeon is superior in almost every aspect.

When I played Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous I realised, that what works for me from the story introduction point of view is when I know who the antagonist is from the start, and when they are introduced with a bang. This worked so well in both BG1 and BG2, as well as in WoTR.

There is one more subtle thing I failed to mention, that also helps to build the right mood for me. It's something I would call "environmental storybuilding". Two examples of where this worked especially well for me would be Fallout 4 and Icewind Dale. What I mean by environmental storybuilding? It's the way the game tries to present you some background stories using elements of the world around you. In Fallout 4 you could literally picture what happened in the area, just by looking at the scene. As for Icewind Dale, I'll recommend this very insightful old post on Beamdog forum, that perfectly sums up my feelings about this topic.

 

[m7600]

Addendum: Actually, when you emerge from the initial dungeon, Imoen gets captured by the Cowled Wizards, not by Irenicus, who also gets captured by them.

However, once you reach Spellhold, it turns out that it was all part of Irenicus' plan, and he really did capture Imoen. Sorry, it's kind of early over here, my brain is not at 100% yet.

 

[Antimatter]

We had a good discussion before here on what makes a good story, it's still relevant to this topic.

I don't intend to sound controversial but I will go on and say that BG2's writing is now dated mostly. It still has beautiful language, yes, but the world has changed, this medium has changed, and new standards have appeared. We (I mean, gamers) have seen many new titles, stories, etc, and we have watched new movies and read new books.

I agree with the part about the prologue and getting hooked, this is still relevant.

For me, the meaning of the word "writing" is different from the OP. It has to do more with fewer tropes and a better plot, newer approaches, and new topics to explore. I need to care about what the character(s) is(are) going through, I need to relate to them, be it the protagonist, or side NPCs. Also, in many cases, it shouldn't be a predictable story. I'm fine with stories that I can predict, but in order to call the writing good, I need to be surprised. Another request is that characters shouldn't be perfect / Mary Sue / Prince Charming, they need to be vulnerable, and they need to have faults. Probably another aspect is that scenes should show instead of explaining. If someone is called bad, it's not enough to just see mentions of them being bad, I need to see it, and I need to see the consequences of their actions. And probably last but not least, it should have a satisfying ending that resolves the previous dilemma. Mass Effect 3 ending definitely harmed my overall opinion on the writing of the trilogy, even if the games almost fit all previous demands.

I need to reference my previous post on this subject and I can support that Disco Elysium, The Witcher 3, and Cyberpunk 2077, more or less, satisfied my approaches toward the writing requests I have.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

(Someone posted while I wrote this. I don't want to go back and change and adjust everything, so bear with me if it seems a bit out of context)

Disclaimer: I liked playing BG and especially BG2, they were my introduction into the world of computer RPGs and some of their NPCs have a fixed place in my group of imaginary friends.

Other part of disclaimer: I'm going to pick out only a few examples for the sake of simplicity.

I also agree that Irenicus' dungeon is strewn with excellent details to get you hooked.

BUT:
Let me play the advocatus diaboli here for a bit, if the storywriting in the Baldur's Gate series is going to be the point of reference.

What if you never recruited Imoen and told her to get lost straight out of Candlekeep?
What if she died?
What if you never helped Minsc rescue Dynaheir? What if you took him along in BG, didn't know about his timer and had to kill him because he went berserk on you?

Don't the first encounters with your default party in Irenicus' dungeon feel quite forced in that case? Of course, magic, resurrection, etc, but still, if you didn't play the canon way, the catching story hook suddenly feels like an awkward construct.

I also have a different personal opinion about the main adversary being introduced with a bang in the beginning. I like it when I don't know what I'm up against, whrn I have to uncover more and more secrets along the way.
With Sarevok and especially Irenicus it works for me anyway, because even if you have seen them and heard their names, you don't know who and what they are, what their plans, motives and background stories are, what they really want. Uncovering more and more about that has a similar appeal as trying to uncover who or what you're even fighting against. And Irenicus in particular is just such a charismatic adversary (the voice!).

But why it worked for me was because of that charisma and because of all the open questions and secrets to uncover along the way, not because I knew from the beginning who and what I'm fighting against. Without that plot to uncover what's really going on, and without their strong characters, especially BG2 would have felt mostly like a permanent chase, a "these were the adventures I had while on an odyssey to catch up to that guy but was always a step behind him", and frankly that wouldn't have been the most exciting story for me.

It's also not what hooked me to play it repeatedly, because you can uncover a plot only once. The reasons why I replayed it were because it was the only game I had for quite a while, because I wanted to try out different NPCs and different tactical challenges, not because the (very good!) story was something I wanted to see over and over again. In fact, I get bored rather quickly if I already know by heart every step, every corner, every dialogue.

And that's the main point I was aiming for: I liked Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. I still like them, in a way that I fondly remember how I felt when they were newer to me. Not because I think they're the epitome of storywriting and nothing created afterwards could ever catch up with them.

I like stories where I know very little at the start of the game and where information gradually starts to make sense, where little things I saw in the beginning start clicking, falling into place, after a time. That can be achieved in various ways, of course.
In Mass Effect it was the universal threat of an ancient enemy of all organic life, in Dragon Age: Origins it was a different but similarly apocalyptic threat, in Assassin's Creed: Odyssey it even took quite a while for me to realize that there actually IS a big complex plot with several surprises and not just a collection of mercenary jobs, and in Cyberpunk 2077 it was the very personal threat of looming death, similar to the stolen soul in BG2.
I believe it was @alice_ashpool who summed that up in the thread about storywriting, personal threat vs apocalyptic threat as a story hook, and why Pillars of Eternity missed the goal by throwing ALL known story hooks at people and yet making it feel impersonal.
But story hooks aside, I want the plot to surprise me, to tell me something new, not check boxes on a list of good ingredients for stories that have been successful. That's why liking one game won't necessarily make me like an outwardly similar game.

I especially prefer stories where not only the recruitable NPCs feel like real people, but also the main adversary or others we meet, people with real feelings, credible motives and complex personalities, not cartoonishly good or evil two-dimensional characters. Grey areas. Difficult decisions. Human nature. Mature topics that make me think about life and death and stories that make me ask questions, not answer them all.

To put it very, very simply:
When I finish an RPG, I don't want to have the feeling that I finished a quest or earned an achievement, I want the feeling that I have lived a life.

 

[m7600]

I don't intend to sound controversial but I will go on and say that BG2's writing is now dated mostly. It still has beautiful language, yes, but the world has changed, this medium has changed, and new standards have appeared. We (I mean, gamers) have seen many new titles, stories, etc, and we have watched new movies and read new books.

I actually agree here. BG2 does have some insensitive things. But I think we should also remember that there are games that were much, much worse in that sense. I'm thinking about Arcanum specifically, since I'm currently replaying it after more than a decade since the last time. Don't get me wrong, overall I think it's a great game, the setting is truly unique. But, it has some things that are beyond just dated, they're straight-up brutal and unpleasant. Nevermind the constant in-game racism that you get from talking to random NPCs, that's nothing in comparison to the utterly screwed-up story about how they were force-breeding half-ogres to serve as a slave race in an in-game version of a eugenics program (that part of the game was sinister AF). Another thing that was seriously screwed up was Belle the Sheep, which you discover at the brothel. Remember that? I honestly didn't remember it (seems like my mind blocked it), and I was horrified when I found out about it during this run. I was shocked and disgusted at the developers for including that in the game. Why did they do that? Was this acceptable back then in those early days of the CRPG industry? I sincerely believe that at some point you have to draw the line. This reminds me of the conversation between @BelgarathMTH and @Urdnot_Wrex about playing evil characters. While I agree with Wrex in general, I do believe that Belgarath raises an important and valid point, which we (the gaming community in general) must begin to discuss at some point, which is that we can't just simply allow anything to be in a game. I don't think that you'll become a robber or murderer in real life just because you rob and kill people in a role playing game. But I also don't think it's perfectly fine to give players the option to have their characters rape a sheep at a brothel. You have to draw the line somewhere, IMHO.

 

[Cahir]

It still has beautiful language, yes, but the world has changed, this medium has changed, and new standards have appeared.

Actually, the first part of this sentence is the main reason of my original post. This is exactly what I realized recently and what hit me by surprise - how much writing style matters to me. Taking Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen as an example - I didn't even give the game a proper chance, I just couldn't get past the awkward writing style.

Generally, I agree with your points, @Antimatter, my reference about BG2EE was about the writing style, the wording, the funny dialogues, not about the plot itself, new fresh angles to explore. I was just surprised how good it still reads.

I also have a different personal opinion about the main adversary being introduced with a bang in the beginning. I like it when I don't know what I'm up against, whrn I have to uncover more and more secrets along the way.

I agree to a degree, with the difference that I like to see the end goal from the beginning. The end goal of course may not end up the way I initially thought and there can be twists along the way, but I need to have an adversary to focus on. The perfect example was Pathfinder: Kingmaker where for a long time I couldn't tell who am I fighting against and when I finally learned that, I was very disappointed.

With Sarevok and especially Irenicus it works for me anyway, because even if you have seen them and heard their names, you don't know who and what they are, what their plans, motives and background stories are, what they really want. Uncovering more and more about that has a similar appeal as trying to uncover who or what you're even fighting against. And Irenicus in particular is just such a charismatic adversary (the voice!).

Both were ominous, charismatic and secretive figures, that I wanted to learn more about almost instantly. I agree that uncovering the truth about them was the main part of the fun.

I like stories where I know very little at the start of the game and where information gradually starts to make sense, where little things I saw in the beginning start clicking, falling into place, after a time.

It's a two side coin for me. If not done right, I get easily confused with too little (or too much info). I need to have at least one hook, something that explains the motivation of anyone or anything that is behind the whole story. If the game throws me nothing, only some random lore details, it doesn't work for me.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

One important thing I'd like to add is that I love discussing and sharing opinions, but we need to remember it's all subjective impressions. What's a very bad story is maybe easy to agree on, but we can't always quite put our finger on what exactly we like or expect from a good story.
I know I can describe what left an impact or caught my interest in a game I played, but I can't say that's exclusively what I like or that a game can only grip me when it contains those elements.
It's a bit like trying to explain why you love a person. I can describe what I like about that person, but I can't say I would love another person who shares several of those characteristics, and I can't say I would never be capable of loving a person who, for example, has a different hair colour or height.

 

[mlnevese]

One of the things I noticed over the years is if the game story does not hook me quite from the beginning, I'll lose interest quite fast and never complete it. My fellow tavern keepers have seen me try to like some popular games more than once over the years and fail.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

One of the things I noticed over the years is if the game story does not hook me quite from the beginning, I'll lose interest quite fast and never complete it. My fellow tavern keepers have seen me try to like some popular games more than once over the years and fail.

Serious question: Do you remember if that also was the case before you had Game Pass?
Because sometimes I wonder if the knowledge that there are so many competing games out there means they have to catch us early or we'll move on.
Not necessarily a bad thing of course, because it won't make you spend hours of life to see if a mediocre game will eventually get better just because you paid for it.
Some stories need a bit of time to unfold, and while we might give them that chance in a book, a game has more pressure here.
If it's on Steam for example, tedious first 2 hours will lead to refunds (while most of us won't even have finished character creation by then)

 

[O_Bruce]

I actually agree here. BG2 does have some insensitive things. But I think we should also remember that there are games that were much, much worse in that sense. I'm thinking about Arcanum specifically, since I'm currently replaying it after more than a decade since the last time. Don't get me wrong, overall I think it's a great game, the setting is truly unique. But, it has some things that are beyond just dated, they're straight-up brutal and unpleasant. Nevermind the constant in-game racism that you get from talking to random NPCs, that's nothing in comparison to the utterly screwed-up story about how they were force-breeding half-ogres to serve as a slave race in an in-game version of a eugenics program (that part of the game was sinister AF). Another thing that was seriously screwed up was Belle the Sheep, which you discover at the brothel. Remember that? I honestly didn't remember it (seems like my mind blocked it), and I was horrified when I found out about it during this run. I was shocked and disgusted at the developers for including that in the game. Why did they do that? Was this acceptable back then in those early days of the CRPG industry? I sincerely believe that at some point you have to draw the line. This reminds me of the conversation between @BelgarathMTH and @Urdnot_Wrex about playing evil characters. While I agree with Wrex in general, I do believe that Belgarath raises an important and valid point, which we (the gaming community in general) must begin to discuss at some point, which is that we can't just simply allow anything to be in a game. I don't think that you'll become a robber or murderer in real life just because you rob and kill people in a role playing game. But I also don't think it's perfectly fine to give players the option to have their characters rape a sheep at a brothel. You have to draw the line somewhere, IMHO.

I'd like to bring up two things here, though one is more of a question actually.

So, first of all what exactly makes BG2 writing insensitive and/or dated? I might have some vague idea what you mean, but I don't want to go into a conclusion without more info. I'd like to ask @Antimatter to elaborate on his thoughts on the matter as well.

Second, I disagree to an extent with "gamers need to discuss what's acceptable in games" because it is essentially asking for censorship. Sure, depending on the target audience and artistic vision, it makes sense to decide what to include and what not - you don't want to compromise your game's artistic integrity, after all. But, if the game concept as a whole allows some questionable decisions and the authors feel like including them as an option, they definitely should be able to. It would be an option after all and because we're talking about role-playing games, having the option to do something you would be against in real life is only a plus. And taking that option wouldn't even imply anything about players that did exactly that - after all, they are playing the game, playing a character they are not, and not harming anyone in the process.

Also, as a theoretical psychology major, that doesn't work in the area of my expertise, I'd say not being exposed to things that make you uncomfortable in life is harmful in the long run to such things as coping skills, ability to manage stress etc.

With all that said, I can actually see that sanitization in entertainment, particularly in western entertainment is already a thing and progressing.

 

[Antimatter]

I meant that story/NPC tropes first shown in BG1 & BG2 released 24 and 22 years ago respectively worked in those games but they no longer work nowadays, due to them being repeated in many other games & other media and also due to age.

Just a few examples:

Imoen being your sidekick and weaker, needing constant help and care, even the whole part about going and saving her. Compare this to, e.g. Ichigo saving Orihime in Bleach. Leliana from Dragon Age games is a big improvement (especially with her character development in Inquisition), and even Miranda from Mass Effect is an improvement over Imoen.

Romances in BG2 were among the first attempts to build romancing systems in RPGs, now these systems evolved, due to Dragon Age & other games. In BG2 Aerie and Viconia are very much shells of particular personalities with almost nothing extra. Anomen is even worse in this context.

One-dimensional NPCs such as Ajantis and Xzar are more like sketches now.

 

[O_Bruce]

I see. From my understanding, tropes are not necessarily bad (they can be if mishandled), and while overusing them is annoying for people who have seen them over and over again, people come and go. Meaning there's always a first time someone is exposed to a particular trope. Basically, what I'm saying is, it is dependent on the individual point of view. There are people who'll get annoyed by repeated tropes - I get that. There are people who therefore want novelty above everything else - I get that. But there are people who still accept "overused" tropes if enough heart is behind them. And I so get that.

But as for your assessment of the characters, I do disagree for the most part. I'd say the romance characters are built around one concept, then expanded upon. Each romanceable character undergoes a character development that are leaving them a different person. Additionally, Anomen has some really real-life issues hanging over him, like his alcoholic father, his mother's death etc. so in his instance I fail to see how Anomen's even worse.

With a rescue trope, while I do agree with Imoen, I do disagree with Orihime to a certain extent as an example, because

Spoiler

it was her own agency that made her go along with her captors, with her intention being to protect her friends. It was even established earlier how bad she feels about not being able to do anything for them, despite her willingness to. And that trait was not only taken advantage of but also made her decision pretty organic

. Not bad.

As for one-dimensional NPCs, I do agree.

 

[BelgarathMTH]

I'd like to bring up two things here, though one is more of a question actually.

So, first of all what exactly makes BG2 writing insensitive and/or dated? I might have some vague idea what you mean, but I don't want to go into a conclusion without more info. I'd like to ask @Antimatter to elaborate on his thoughts on the matter as well.

Second, I disagree to an extent with "gamers need to discuss what's acceptable in games" because it is essentially asking for censorship. Sure, depending on the target audience and artistic vision, it makes sense to decide what to include and what not - you don't want to compromise your game's artistic integrity, after all. But, if the game concept as a whole allows some questionable decisions and the authors feel like including them as an option, they definitely should be able to. It would be an option after all and because we're talking about role-playing games, having the option to do something you would be against in real life is only a plus. And taking that option wouldn't even imply anything about players that did exactly that - after all, they are playing the game, playing a character they are not, and not harming anyone in the process.

Also, as a theoretical psychology major, that doesn't work in the area of my expertise, I'd say not being exposed to things that make you uncomfortable in life is harmful in the long run to such things as coping skills, ability to manage stress etc.

With all that said, I can actually see that sanitization in entertainment, particularly in western entertainment is already a thing and progressing.

I agree with this to a large extent. If games with a morality system didn't provide "evil" choices, and enough reward for making those choices to actually tempt people to want to choose them, then my "good" choices *not* to do those things would have no meaning. For example, my personal insistence on not robbing and stealing in BG1 means I can never have the Stupifier Mace, because it must be stolen from a locked drawer in another person's inn room. I can never use Crom Faer in BG2, because that would mean deliberately making a sacrifice on an evil demonic altar. Other people have no problem doing those things, and they are rewarded for it, in a big way. They want the power increase of those items, and they are willing to stop at nothing to get them.

However, I would also agree that there need to be some limits, because some things are too awful to have present in a game. For example, sticking to BG for now, you are not allowed to attack and kill children. Even when we want meaningful moral choices in our games, I don't think we need that. It's a bridge too far. I'm not sure about the bestiality example from the other post. I think having such things in a game is in very poor taste at the least. I wouldn't want to play a game that had a lot of things like that in it.

 

[Urdnot_Wrex]

From my understanding, tropes are not necessarily bad (they can be if mishandled), and while overusing them is annoying for people who have seen them over and over again, people come and go. Meaning there's always a first time someone is exposed to a particular trope. Basically, what I'm saying is, it is dependent on the individual point of view. There are people who'll get annoyed by repeated tropes - I get that. There are people who therefore want novelty above everything else - I get that. But there are people who still accept "overused" tropes if enough heart is behind them. And I so get that.

I think the point here is not that those things were tropes when the first Baldur's Gate games were released, and the romances were among the first ones being written in RPGs, so those things were a huge milestone in their times.
Snd of course I agree that tropes are only tropes if you have seen all their other iterations before. Many people haven't been exposed to them, and "old" methods, when well executed, can still work.

However, the point is that for example romance systems in games have evolved, things like approval and player initiated dialogue and certain story markers to trigger conversations have been added. I wouldn't want to play a game again that initiates romance dialogue based on timers only and above ground, which leads to very odd situations where a conversation gets triggered. Not to mention the content and level of interactivity.
Also, in BG2 romance it's always only the NPC that initiates the talk, and the topic is always only about them. Newer games, and even the same writers, have evolved that. And that's a good thing. Those games were great, and I appreciate them still, but I wouldn't idealize them and prefer playing them nowadays instead of newer games.

 

[mlnevese]

Serious question: Do you remember if that also was the case before you had Game Pass?
Because sometimes I wonder if the knowledge that there are so many competing games out there means they have to catch us early or we'll move on.
Not necessarily a bad thing of course, because it won't make you spend hours of life to see if a mediocre game will eventually get better just because you paid for it.
Some stories need a bit of time to unfold, and while we might give them that chance in a book, a game has more pressure here.
If it's on Steam for example, tedious first 2 hours will lead to refunds (while most of us won't even have finished character creation by then)

Yes. I just got Game Pass last year because my little Martian seems to want a new game every week

 

[Zaxares]

For me, my wants out of an RPG mostly mirror what Cahir said in his opening post.

1. The world must have detailed and intriguing lore and history (Dragon Age: Origins managed to hook me in right from the opening trailer, which I really have to commend them for)
2. The main plot must be intricate and enthralling (Jade Empire would have been a lot less memorable without Sun Li's incredibly well-crafted betrayal, which completely recasts everything he did in the first half of the story)
3. There must be interesting and compelling companions (with the caveat that there ought to be companions that I actually LIKE hanging out with. They can be all well-written, but if you forced me into a party where my only companions were Xzar, Xan, Korgan, Dorn and Tiax, I'd be quite likely to drop the game halfway in. They're all unique and interesting characters, but I don't fancy their company very much.)

With regards to uncomfortable/disquieting acts in RPGs... I think that game designers should have the freedom to include them IF it makes sense for the plot or story, and if the player has the ability to perform those acts, it should be a choice as to whether or not to go through with it. Including unpleasant acts like rape, torture, child murder etc. can serve to showcase the depths of evil and depravity people can sink to, but if done without the proper treatment it can come across feeling like it's there only for prurient interest or shock value, which demeans it. For example, I once played a NWN module which was entirely built around becoming a Blackguard, and the module creator wanted to REALLY show the kind of EVIL it takes to become "a mortal fiend", as the sourcebooks describe them. There's one scene I vividly remember where your character is instructed to go up to 3 children playing in the woods and just brutally murder them, then leave without another word or trace. For the children's (unseen and unmet) parents, they will never know why their children died or who did it. The game lets you muse on the deaths afterward, with your patron querying you on how you felt when you did it. Your answers could range from sadistic joy ("Their screams were delightful!") to cold dispassion ("Mere ants I stepped on on my road to vengeance. Nothing more.") to obsequious devotion ("You called for their deaths, O Master, so they must die.")

All in all, the module was definitely not for everyone, but for those who really wanted to step into a Blackguard's shoes and ponder what the road to damnation would be like, the module did an excellent job of exploring it.