399 réponses à ce sujet

[Miobako]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 
But I don't play roleplaying games to feel like I'm playing me...

That's all these games are about though, or what they were at least.

[JrayM16]

Miobako wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 
But I don't play roleplaying games to feel like I'm playing me...

That's all these games are about though, or what they were at least.

Or were they? 

[Sable Rhapsody]

JrayM16 wrote...

Miobako wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 
But I don't play roleplaying games to feel like I'm playing me...

That's all these games are about though, or what they were at least.

Or were they? 

Dunno about the rest of you, but I don't play roleplaying games to play an upper middle class American college student who's majoring in neuroscience, loves video games, and hates early mornings.  That would get pretty old pretty quick.  I play them to play characters.  A curmudgeonly and cowardly but good-hearted warlock.  A horribly messed up former Jedi hell-bent on vengeance.  A calm, pragmatic N7 Marine with lots of skeletons in her closet.  A confident and compassionate young mage thrown into the middle of a war.

Sure these characters are all shaped by me, and they all have a little of my personality, views, whatever in them, but they're not me.  Far from it.  And I hope it stays that way--god, I'd never want to be anything like my Shep. 

[Miobako]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Miobako wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 
But I don't play roleplaying games to feel like I'm playing me...

That's all these games are about though, or what they were at least.

Or were they? 

Dunno about the rest of you, but I don't play roleplaying games to play an upper middle class American college student who's majoring in neuroscience, loves video games, and hates early mornings.  That would get pretty old pretty quick.  I play them to play characters.  A curmudgeonly and cowardly but good-hearted warlock.  A horribly messed up former Jedi hell-bent on vengeance.  A calm, pragmatic N7 Marine with lots of skeletons in her closet.  A confident and compassionate young mage thrown into the middle of a war.

Sure these characters are all shaped by me, and they all have a little of my personality, views, whatever in them, but they're not me.  Far from it.  And I hope it stays that way--god, I'd never want to be anything like my Shep. 

I wish you never found yourself in a pen&paper game session, you'll totally freak out with what's going on there.

Modifié par Miobako, 15 octobre 2010 - 12:05 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Miobako wrote...

I wish you never found yourself in a pen&paper game session, you'll totally freak out with what's going on there.

Funny you should say that.  I play, DM, and love pen and paper of multiple systems.  Mouse Guard, D&D, L5R, Call of Cthuhlu.  And in those sessions, I the person play my character.  Not me.  I don't think I'd do too well facing down an army of githyanki.

[Miobako]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Miobako wrote...

I wish you never found yourself in a pen&paper game session, you'll totally freak out with what's going on there.

Funny you should say that.  I play, DM, and love pen and paper of multiple systems.  Mouse Guard, D&D, L5R, Call of Cthuhlu.  And in those sessions, I the person play my character.  Not me.  I don't think I'd do too well facing down an army of githyanki.

If that's the case, I find your definition of role-playing very out of that context.

Modifié par Miobako, 15 octobre 2010 - 12:23 .

[DPB]

Miobako, are you suggesting that it isn't roleplaying unless you play a version of yourself? So what are all those people doing that play sociopathic characters?

[John Epler]

Hey, look, a discussion about the definition of both role-playing and role-playing games.



Guess what we aren't going to have! Three guesses, and the first two don't count.



We've reached almost Sisyphean levels with this debate, I swear.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Miobako wrote...

If that's the case, I find your definition of role-playing very out of that context.

I'm curious--do you really always play yourself?  You, but a wizard?  You, but a Twi'lek?  Would everything about your characters be 100% identical to you except the mechanical trappings?  Personally, I'd find that rather tedious after a while.  There's a reason why DMs will draw distinctions between player and character.

Take L5R, for example, a heavily samurai-themed setting.  I have fundamental personality and philosophical differences with my character in L5R.  Why wouldn't I?  I'm raised on Western morals and ideals, and she's an Eastern-inspired character.  In fact, playing a character like me in L5R would completely destroy the atmosphere of the game.  So then I guess L5R then doesn't count as roleplaying?  Wha??

dbankier wrote...

Miobako, are you suggesting that it isn't roleplaying unless you play a version of yourself? So what are all those people doing that play sociopathic characters?

*cackle*  HWAA!  HWAA!  ALL OF MY classMATES SHALL BE SUMMARILY EXECUTED FOR MY PERSONAL LULZ!

[Miobako]

dbankier wrote...

Miobako, are you suggesting that it isn't roleplaying unless you play a version of yourself? So what are all those people doing that play sociopathic characters?

This has been debated many times, I agree with those people that believe that role-playing means that you project yourself in the game world playing a certain role that the game allows you to play. It's not your real everyday self, you can cast spells or hide in shadows, but still it's you doing all that. To what degree you can project yourself and live the adventure, that's up to everyone's need to do so. Daydreamers tends to go very far.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Miobako wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Miobako, are you suggesting that it isn't roleplaying unless you play a version of yourself? So what are all those people doing that play sociopathic characters?

This has been debated many times, I agree with those people that believe that role-playing means that you project yourself in the game world playing a certain role that the game allows you to play. It's not your real everyday self, you can cast spells or hide in shadows, but still it's you doing all that. To what degree you can project yourself and live the adventure, that's up to everyone's need to do so. Daydreamers tends to go very far.

Fair enough.  That's how my boyfriend sees it.  Not how I play.  I've got a split the size of the Great Wall of China between player and character.  We'll just have to agree to disagree before John modthwapps us again 

What were we talking about before this tangent?  VO?

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 15 octobre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Miobako]

Right, VO, and from what I can tell, the OP meant VO for NPCs and not for the PC.

[Felene]

The point of voice-over?

So that the game world seem more realistic and easier time for player to jump in the game(role play?)

IMO, a game without voice-over will be a little bit too quite.

You can disable voice-over in game by lowering down the voice or sound option and see how that work out I guess.

Modifié par Felene, 15 octobre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Miobako]

Felene wrote...

The point of voice-over?

So that the game world seem more realistic and easier time for player to jump in the game(role play?)

IMO, a game without voice-over will become a little bit too quite.

As some people points out in previous posts, realism isn't something that a RPG should strive for, not necessarily at least. I would agree that the goal for an RPG is to go as far from realism as it can. a personal preference of course.

Strangely enough, and this was point out also in previous posts, BG world seems far more lively that DAO world sound-wise. Try it for yourself and you'll see.

Modifié par Miobako, 15 octobre 2010 - 01:04 .

[Felene]

Miobako wrote...

Felene wrote...

The point of voice-over?

So that the game world seem more realistic and easier time for player to jump in the game(role play?)

IMO, a game without voice-over will become a little bit too quite.

As some people points out in previous posts, realism isn't something that a RPG should strive for, not necessarily at least. I would agree that the goal for an RPG is to go as far from realism as it can. a personal preference of course.

Strangely enough, and this was point out also in previous posts, BG world seems far more lively that DAO world sound-wise. Try it for yourself and you'll see.

Well, then I guess we will have to move the point of argument to the reason a gamer choose to play a RPG and not read a book or watch a movie.

A game, or any game is design to be interactive.

Whenever player makes a move, there will be a respond from the game itself/or another player.

A good game will focus on the interactive part. And Bioware's approach in make their game more "interactive" is by adding sounds, voices, choices & consequences, engaging story elements...etc.

So IMO anyone who fail to see the point of voice-over in game can either turn off all sound in game or read a book.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

In the initial marketing of ME, they said the paraphrase was there to simulate the feeling of conversation, where we have an intuition for what we want to say and what broader purpose we want to achieve, but we do not know precisely how we want to say it. As criticism mounted for ME, especially from the old cRPG crowd, Bioware moved away from this and then came to a position of "3rd person narrative versus 1st person narrative." But ME initialy was not envisioned as any such thing. Since I can't be sure whether or not Bioware changed their mind, changed their response for the sake of marketing/placating, or some combination of both, I am going to assume their original premise in design is the most relevant to understanding the wheel.  That being said, there were significant changes to ME as it was being designed (including removing full party control).

I am looking for articles right now on this. If you would like to look yourself, I believe either Drew or Chris spoke about this on the old ME1 boards.

As I said above, I'm currently searching for a citiation. I know this sounds vacuous, but my memory is very accurate for the sort of things I pay attention to, and this was one thing I remember being featured heavily as Mass Effect was being previewed. This was pre-X06 however, and post-X06 Mass Effect had dramatic changes (they dropped full party control, and other things, like speaking about it as the spiritual succesor for KoTOR). [/quote]
I wouldn't have seen that, then.  Since ME was announced as a console-exclusive title, I didn't follow its development at all.  I never expected to have an opportunity to play it (I didn't have a 360, nor did I ever expect to).
[quote]It is more complicated than that. Research suggests that when people prepare to speak, they have an intention to affect the world instead of a definite knowledge of what they will say. This is the natural spontaneity of conversation. I have an idea of what I want to say to how, and broadly how I want to say it, but not precisely how I will say it.[/quote]
So then you stop - before you speak - and compose a sentence.  Do you seriously just start talking not knowing what you're going to say?  You're not able to adhere to specific expression objectives?

That's how ME dialogue worked.  That's how paraphrase dialogue will always work, since the writers can't know what our specific objectives are with each line.

With full text, we can know with certainty whether a line does or does not achieve our desired expression objectives, and select accordingly.
[quote]Whether or not you are composing the sentence in your head, the process of composition is broad intention - compile the sentence word-by-word. [/quote]
What matters here is whether I speak prior to the completion of that composition.  If so, then I'm behaving like Shepard (and I'm behaving like an idiot).  If not, then Shepard's sentence construction behaviour is relevantly dissimilar from how I speak.
[quote]Right, but you when I say that it is more realistic, I mean that it captures the process of how a statement is constructed. Whether you wait to compose your response before uttering it, or compose it as you utter it, the process actually turns out to be largely identical.[/quote]
They're fundamentally different, in that in one case I know what I'm going to say before I say it, and in the other I'm some kind of lunatic.
[quote]I'm sure you would object and say the major difference is that in one case you have precision (because you've compiled it first) and the other you don't, but I as of right now I only want to show you the justification in why the wheel could plausibly represent an account for how conversation works. [/quote]
What matters is how expression works, and expression includes composition.

The composition isn't availabel to us in a CRPG, but with full-text options we can at least see what we've composed to determine whether such a result is permitted by our character design.
[quote]No, you're not reading my comment right.

What I am saying is that in Mass Effect (in fact this seems to be the case in all Bioware games to date, but Mass Effect was the worst offender), the specific literal content of the sentence is designed to act as a logical cue to the next thing the NPC will say.[/quote]
That's absurd.  The next thing the NPC will say has to do only with the NPC.  BioWare has been very clear that we don't get to decide how the NPCs behave in conversation.

The objective in selecting a dialogue option for the PC is only a matter of expression, just like any line spoken in any real world environment.
[quote]Let me try to explain it this way. In actual conversation, I will say some thing to you. You will spend some time processing what I said, and then you will respond.[/quote]
I'd add a step between the processing and response wherein I compose possible responses and then discard those I don't like, but go on.
[quote]In Mass Effect (and strictly speaking in Bioware games to date), it is more like you have already decided what line you would like to say, and then you provide me with a list of things I can say to make your line coherent. This is what I mean by the player not driving the conversation.[/quote]
I disagree that that's how the games work.  I can see why you would play them that way (given your willingness to retcon basically everything about your character), but nothing about it seems any less strange.
[quote]In other words, even though I (as the player) am speaking to an NPC for the sake of achieving some purpose in the world, the things I say are not actually to achieve that purpose but rather to have the other person produce a preset line.[/quote]
Your character (with you as its mental processor) is presented with a situation in a conversation.  You (the player) determine how the PC feels about what has just happened, his opinions regarding the NPCs involved, and then you combine this information wth any pre-existing objectives or preferences your character has.

This establishes the PC's mental state.  Then, you (the player) read the available dialogue options and select the one that is consistent with the PC's mental state.  This is how you maintain the consistency of your character's mind and behaviour.

My thought process in CRPG conversations ends right there, because I've no achieved my objective.  The NPC reaction, whatever it is (which is unpredictable, just like any person's reaction in the real world) simply creates a new set of circumstances for the next in-character decision.
[quote]This is why, for example, in ME we have the following exchange (paraprased, at this point, by me):

C-Sec Executor: Saren has gone too far.
Paraphrase: I agree. 
Statement: I will do anything to take Saren down.
C-Sec Executor: That's what worries me. 

The writer wanted to have the C-Sec officer shoot that quip. So then he wrote the line for Shepard. Then, he comes up with the paraphrase based on how he's interpreted the conversation. [/quote]
That's probably true.

I suggested once on the old ME2 boards that the paraphrase options should be written by a different writer, preferrably one with no knowledge of the conversation, and with access only to the actual uttered line as source material.

So, in your example, that writer (this would be a good exercise for interns to see if it works), would write the paraphrase option based solely on "I will do anything to take Saren down."
[quote]But I already granted this. I am not arguing I should be allowed to say anything. What I am arguing is that once an option appears as a dialogue option, it cannot dissapear unless there is a justification for it.[/quote]
Why not?  If you didn't select it then it has no relevance for your character.  It never existed.
[quote]There has to be a reason I can say a line and then not say that line; otherwise the game is telling me things about precisely what my mental state is, and we can both agree that in that case this is very bad.[/quote]
I would agree that's bad, but that's not what's happening.  The game isn't telling you anything other than "You're allowed to say any of these things:"  There's no information about your character contained within the mere existence of a dialogue option.

If you think there is, I'd like you to point it out.
[quote][quote]That's the point of reference I mentioned.[/quote]
I don't understand.[/quote]
I said that "forward" had to meaning without a point of reference.  You offered one by saying "forward" was toward the speaker's conversational objective.

The game doesn't know what your objective is.  There's no such thing as "forward" within CRPG dialogue.

[21121313]

I don't mind reading text, but i can see why VO is important. Reading that someone is angry is one thing, but actually hearing them be angry is another. I agree that VO tends to take away the players imagination, but honestly how many players here were around to see the first text in a game? And no, i don't mean playing a 20-30 year old game, i mean playing it when it came out.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that VO was actually implemented into games because developers were afraid of the short attention span of post 2000 gamers. It's bad enough that games that aren't developed in (insert names those who complain)'s own image that they now suck, but it needs to be easier to understand as well to keep the attention.

As for DA:O, some of it was just hilarious to hear like Wade and the guard behind Denerim's arls estate. Andraste's knickers.....Did you fall off a cart full of stupid?

Stand back. Herren says my hammer starts to swing wildly when i get excited...Ho!!! I seriously laughed my ass off when i heard that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

21121313 wrote...

I don't mind reading text, but i can see why VO is important. Reading that someone is angry is one thing, but actually hearing them be angry is another.

I'll agree with that for NPCs.  Voice-over there does have some value (whether it's worth the cost is open for debate, but I'll concede that there is some benefit to voicing NPCs, all else being equal).

My concern with PC VO is that I should be the one to decide whether Hawke is angry.  He's my character.  Only I know how he behaves.

[Merced256]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

21121313 wrote...

I don't mind reading text, but i can see why VO is important. Reading that someone is angry is one thing, but actually hearing them be angry is another.

I'll agree with that for NPCs.  Voice-over there does have some value (whether it's worth the cost is open for debate, but I'll concede that there is some benefit to voicing NPCs, all else being equal).

My concern with PC VO is that I should be the one to decide whether Hawke is angry.  He's my character.  Only I know how he behaves.

Well i mean look at this way. The writers don't trust you enough to make your story good enough, so they make you ride on the rails of theirs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merced256 wrote...

Well i mean look at this way. The writers don't trust you enough to make your story good enough, so they make you ride on the rails of theirs.

I'm well aware of that.

And I object.

[Merced256]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Well i mean look at this way. The writers don't trust you enough to make your story good enough, so they make you ride on the rails of theirs.

I'm well aware of that.

And I object.

See now you're just being rude, you should totally be appreciative that they built this nice roller coaster for you.

[upsettingshorts]

I don't think it's a question of trust. But I'm more or less a broken record at this point. You could probably write the rest of my response for me.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I wouldn't have seen that, then.  Since ME was announced as a console-exclusive title, I didn't follow its development at all.  I never expected to have an opportunity to play it (I didn't have a 360, nor did I ever expect to). [/quote]

That was how it was presented at first. This 3rd person vs. 1st person narrative discussion was a departure and the first time I recall seeing it was while ME2 was being previewed. I don't know if that mean there was a shift in philosophy from ME1 to ME2. Strange if that was the case, since I thought ME2 was better implemented (relatiely speaking).

[quote]So then you stop - before you speak - and compose a sentence.  Do you seriously just start talking not knowing what you're going to say?  You're not able to adhere to specific expression objectives?[/quote]

I never think before I speak. I don't even articulate particular expression objectives. The only time I would do this is if the wording of a point was very important - for example if I was taking a class, and wanted to ask a question. If I was just speaking, then no.

I didn't actually think when I wrote the above. I just typed it. I don't quite know how to express it better than that. I certainly don't articulate specific expression objectives before I express myself, or compose a full sentence and then say it outloud. That seems very weird.

If I was going to think before speaking (i.e. compose a full sentence) I would need to write it down. And even then as I would say it I would probably deviate heavily from the literal content of that sentence. 

[quote]With full text, we can know with certainty whether a line does or does not achieve our desired expression objectives, and select accordingly. [/quote]

I disagree completely. Again, consider the line: "That was a great idea."

Depending on the pragmatics it could mean very different things. It could mean that this one particular idea was great. It could mean that this was great as an idea, but not in practice. It could be sarcastic; the idea was actually bad. There is no way to know this from the written line in isolation.

If what I wanted to convey was that the idea was great as an idea but not in practice, there is nothing in the literal content of the sentence that allows me to know precisely that is what effect the line will in fact have.

[quote]What matters here is whether I speak prior to the completion of that composition.  If so, then I'm behaving like Shepard (and I'm behaving like an idiot).  If not, then Shepard's sentence construction behaviour is relevantly dissimilar from how I speak.[/quote]

Of course; but if we are going to talk about something being an accurate model of how something occurs, and the process is not purely homogenous, then we have to accept that the account will be an idealization. It is precisely what a nomalist would argue about categories (for example, with biological species).

If you want to go on we should take the content of speech part to PM so we do not derail the thread.

[quote]They're fundamentally different, in that in one case I know what I'm going to say before I say it, and in the other I'm some kind of lunatic. [/quote]

Do you think I'm a lunatic? I didn't know I was going to type this sentence as worded expect precisely at the moment I typed it.

[quote]What matters is how expression works, and expression includes composition.

The composition isn't availabel to us in a CRPG, but with full-text options we can at least see what we've composed to determine whether such a result is permitted by our character design.[/quote]

Again, I disagree. Full-text provides me less than the intent, because the intent is more important than the literal meaning. To go back to my example:

We could have the line "It was a good idea." or, we could have the paraphrase "Only in theory". The NPC could conceivably take "It was a good idea" as the spoken line to mean the third meaning - that the idea was only good as an idea. But as a paraphrase, the short statement "Only in theory" does a better job to capture the intent of the line than the literal line.

In fact, I would wager this is sometimes how a conflict for the paraphrase could arise for you. If you see the paraphrase "Only in theory" and then have your character say "It was a good idea." you might be tempted to say your control was derailed.

[quote]That's absurd.  The next thing the NPC will say has to do only with the NPC.  BioWare has been very clear that we don't get to decide how the NPCs behave in conversation. [/quote]

But Bioware does. Bioware decides how NPC behaves. And Bioware writes what the PC will say, and what the NPC will say. And Bioware seems to write what the PC wil say as a cue for what the NPC will say. And so what the PC says is constrained by what the PC says as a matter of design.

You want to bring this back to a matter of role-play, but that is missing the point. Here we are talking exclusively about game design.

[quote]The objective in selecting a dialogue option for the PC is only a matter of expression, just like any line spoken in any real world environment.[/quote]

Which has nothing to do with how the dialogue is being written, and I am only speaking about how the dialogue is written and how that choice of design creates a huge problem for Bioware in terms of not just VO, but silent-VO.

I think what have you to say about mental states is interesting, but responding to it will derail the thread. I will PM here.

[quote]I disagree that that's how the games work.  I can see why you would play them that way (given your willingness to retcon basically everything about your character), but nothing about it seems any less strange. [/quote]

Wait, what? I wouldn't retcon anything about my character. When I say that a particualr choice makes a character impossible for me, I mean that character is dead and I have to start the game over, from scratch, with a new character only in the hope that I can avoid the problem. It is why I have played DA:O for hundreds of hours with tens of characters but only have like 4 save files. Because I constantly deleted duds.

[quote]That's probably true.

I suggested once on the old ME2 boards that the paraphrase options should be written by a different writer, preferrably one with no knowledge of the conversation, and with access only to the actual uttered line as source material. [/quote]

Right, I am speaking only about this as an issue of design with the paraphrase (and, in fact, my general criticism of silent-VO and why written dialogue has intent, from a design as opposed to purely linguistic/philosophical standpoint).  The PC lines are not written as stand-alone lines. They are written as cues for NPC lines. This removes ambiguity for the writer that is natural in language, because the writer is working backwards (replying to the NPC, essentially); we are working foward (we are picking the phrase first, then hearing the reply). So the context from the NPC phrase that removes the ambiguity in the literal line from the PoV of the writer is missing for us, creating the ambiguous literal dialogue choice.

[quote]Why not?  If you didn't select it then it has no relevance for your character.  It never existed. [/quote]

Because I would have selected it. It was a question my character wanted to ask; some other question was just more pertinent. To want to ask a question is a mental state; to have that mental state go away is not possible through anything other than stolen agency.

[quote]I would agree that's bad, but that's not what's happening.  The game isn't telling you anything other than "You're allowed to say any of these things:"  There's no information about your character contained within the mere existence of a dialogue option.[/quote]

The game is saying something more: "At Point A, all these things are the things you can say. At Point B, all these things minus this one thing are the things you can say." There must be a reason for why, between Point A and B, this one thing is no longer some thing that I can say. Nothing external to my character makes this line impossible; yet it is. So either something internal makes it impossible or th

If you think there is, I'd like you to point it out.

[quote]I said that "forward" had to meaning without a point of reference.  You offered one by saying "forward" was toward the speaker's conversational objective.[/quote]

I got what you mean.

[quote]The game doesn't know what your objective is.  There's no such thing as "forward" within CRPG dialogue.
[/quote]

It's about the linear conversation design, with all branches conversing on a single endpoint. No different htan moving foward in the game, which is to say forward in the causal chain that leads from start to finish.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

I never think before I speak. I don't even articulate particular expression objectives. The only time I would do this is if the wording of a point was very important - for example if I was taking a class, and wanted to ask a question. If I was just speaking, then no.

I didn't actually think when I wrote the above. I just typed it. I don't quite know how to express it better than that. I certainly don't articulate specific expression objectives before I express myself, or compose a full sentence and then say it outloud. That seems very weird.

If I was going to think before speaking (i.e. compose a full sentence) I would need to write it down. And even then as I would say it I would probably deviate heavily from the literal content of that sentence. [/quote]
Your approach to expression is completely alien to me.

Right there, with that line, I composed it in my head and even said it aloud to see if it was something I would be happy having said.  I was, so I typed it out for you.
[quote]I disagree completely. Again, consider the line: "That was a great idea."

Depending on the pragmatics it could mean very different things. It could mean that this one particular idea was great. It could mean that this was great as an idea, but not in practice. It could be sarcastic; the idea was actually bad. There is no way to know this from the written line in isolation.[/quote]
If there is a credible reading of the line that serves your character's expression goals, then it's a line you can safely choose.

The effect it will have is your character uttering the line.  That's where your action ends, and everything beyond that isn't something you control.
[quote]If what I wanted to convey was that the idea was great as an idea but not in practice, there is nothing in the literal content of the sentence that allows me to know precisely that is what effect the line will in fact have. [/quote]
The line tells you what the literal content of the sentence will be.  Full stop.  Being able to see the full text lets you determine whether that literal content is acceptable.

If there are extra concerns you have beyond the literal content, that's a separate issue.
[quote]Do you think I'm a lunatic? I didn't know I was going to type this sentence as worded expect precisely at the moment I typed it.[/quote]
That your behaviour in conversation is not predictable even by you makes that behaviour not materially different from lunacy, yes.
[quote]Again, I disagree. Full-text provides me less than the intent, because the intent is more important than the literal meaning.[/quote]
How can what you actually say be less important than what you intend to say?  That's completely absurd.

And even if you do want to know intent, isn't the full text a more precise description of that intent than a paraphrase can be?
[quote]To go back to my example:

We could have the line "It was a good idea." or, we could have the paraphrase "Only in theory". The NPC could conceivably take "It was a good idea" as the spoken line to mean the third meaning - that the idea was only good as an idea. But as a paraphrase, the short statement "Only in theory" does a better job to capture the intent of the line than the literal line.

In fact, I would wager this is sometimes how a conflict for the paraphrase could arise for you. If you see the paraphrase "Only in theory" and then have your character say "It was a good idea." you might be tempted to say your control was derailed. [/quote]
Absolutely.  I don't see how a paraphrase can ever be a more accurate representation of a line than the line itself would be.

My intent is constrained by the uttered line.  If I didn't intend to say "It was a good idea", then I simply won't select that line.
[quote]But Bioware does. Bioware decides how NPC behaves. And Bioware writes what the PC will say, and what the NPC will say. And Bioware seems to write what the PC wil say as a cue for what the NPC will say. And so what the PC says is constrained by what the PC says as a matter of design.

You want to bring this back to a matter of role-play, but that is missing the point. Here we are talking exclusively about game design.[/quote]
Game design is irrelevant to gameplay.  Regardless of how BioWare intended the lines to be used (as cues, you say), how the lines can be used is something else entirely.

Even if BioWare came out and explicitly told us we were supposed to play as you describe, why should their directive carry any prescriptive force?  Why must that constrain how we play?
[quote]Wait, what? I wouldn't retcon anything about my character. When I say that a particualr choice makes a character impossible for me, I mean that character is dead and I have to start the game over, from scratch, with a new character only in the hope that I can avoid the problem. It is why I have played DA:O for hundreds of hours with tens of characters but only have like 4 save files. Because I constantly deleted duds. [/quote]
Don't you determine what your character intended based on the NPC reactions?  Every time you do that, that's a retcon (since the NPC reaction isn't available until after the initial decision).
[quote]Because I would have selected it. It was a question my character wanted to ask; some other question was just more pertinent.[/quote]
So then you asked a different question.

That choice event is now past.  Now you get an entirely new choice event, with an entirely new set of alternatives (some of which may have existed in previous events, but that's not relevant).  Given your character's mental state now, at this choice event, which of these options permit consistency?

You're treating the conversation as a single event, rather than a series of potentially unrelated dialogue choices.
[quote]The game is saying something more: "At Point A, all these things are the things you can say. At Point B, all these things minus this one thing are the things you can say." There must be a reason for why, between Point A and B, this one thing is no longer some thing that I can say.[/quote]
You just invented that set - seemingly for no other reason than to create a problem for youself.

Why do you think the game is saying something more?
[quote]It's about the linear conversation design, with all branches conversing on a single endpoint.[/quote]
The design, linear or not, has no relevance to the individual dialogue choices you make.
[quote]No different than moving forward in the game, which is to say forward in the causal chain that leads from start to finish.[/quote]
I'd dispute that, too, given that BioWare doesn't know where the finish is.

[JrayM16]

@Sylvius + Everyone

(I would have quoted, but the post chain was getting really long)



I would like to engage everyone on this forum to some studies of the English language and how it is used in speech and writing to illustrate my points about this topic(apologuies to non-English speakers).



Speaking or writing always occurs within a circumstance, or a rhetorical situation. There are five basic tenets that make up any given situation for writing or speaking:



Subject-What the speaker is talking about.



Occasion-What the speaker is talking about it and what prompte the speech(in dialogue's case, someone saying something to the speaker)



Audience-Who the speaker is talking to, and where the audience is coming from in terms of the conversation(their biases, beleifs, view of the speaker, etc.)



Purpose-Why the speaker is speaking. Why are they saying what they are saying. What they are trying to convey with their statement and what type of reaction they hope to instill.



Speaker's Attitude-The speaker's tone, dispositions and biases to the topic at hand, mood, view of audience, etc.



Now, when looking at a conversation, the elements I have listed make up the context and the subtext of a statement or dialogue. Let's look at InExile's example of "That was a good idea" to demonstrate what I am trying to convey.



The subject of the statement, "That was a good idea" is clearly discussing some kind of idea that was expressed and possibly carried out.



Next is the occasion. The past tense nature of the statement indicates that the idea has probably been carried out to some effect, so let's assume that that is the case for this exercise.



Next, who is the audience, or NPC in this case? Is it the person who came up with the idea or someone else? If it is someone else, then why is the PC talking about the idea to them?



Then the purpose. What is the PC trying to convey with the statement. This is where it starts to get complicated. The context will usually help here, but I'll come back to this later.



Finally, the speaker's attitude. This, along with purpose, would be the point of most contension in trying to determine what a static dialogue choice means. Since we are talking about RPGs, the speaker's attitude can be controlled in a sense by the player, and will typically act as a kind of moral compass for the dialogue choice itself. This is what we would typically call a role.



Back to purpose. This is the same thing as intent. Subtext also comes into play here. Subtext would be the equivalent to the example InExile used where "That was a good idea" is a sarcastic insult. The statement in and of itself has no trace of insult or sarcasm, but it can exist in the statement nevertheless. The only way we can pick up on these things in spoken conversation is through context and tone. WHile context is more exact, tone is easier to pick up on and controls the direction of the statement.



Let's say, in the "That was a good idea" example, that the idea goes catastrophically wrong. In this case, the context narrows down the choices, but doesn't give us an exact meaning. The subtext will definetely tell us what it is though. However, a static line cannot convey the subtext to the player.



Sylvius would undoubtabdly respond tahat the subtext is up to the player's choice. However, this is a somewhat flawed argument as people in life are able to pick up on subtext. By presenting static lines as dialogue options without subtext, the writers nullify any way to for the player to effectively choose what their statement "means".



And of course, in Bioware games, there is typically no option to go back and clarify the meaning of your statement to an NPC.



The point was never about controlling how NPCs behave in a conversation, it was about controlling the subtext of what the PC was saying, which(if done coreectly) can be achieved through paraphrases and VO.