34 réponses à ce sujet

[Shinobu]

Yes, totally became a therapy den mother. The heart-to-hearts really made me appreciate the NPCs more.



As a non-HNF PC who romanced Alistair, his bombshell after becoming king was sort of like a "long con" -- totally devastating even though I knew it was coming (via spoilers). He didn't set out to do it, so not really a con, but it had the same: "WTF, your approval is at 100, how could you do this to me?!" feel to it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Shinobu wrote...

Yes, totally became a therapy den mother. The heart-to-hearts really made me appreciate the NPCs more.

As a non-HNF PC who romanced Alistair, his bombshell after becoming king was sort of like a "long con" -- totally devastating even though I knew it was coming (via spoilers). He didn't set out to do it, so not really a con, but it had the same: "WTF, your approval is at 100, how could you do this to me?!" feel to it.

I'd love a character who would only turn on you at 100 approval or some such. You over-nobelfied him or her too much, and they love you too much to counter their ideals.


Set up some form of a 'many versus few' delimma which can only be decided by them, and you are the 'few.' In any other stage of the relationship, they'd choose to save you: you're too necessary for the greater good, they're selfish, etc.

But if you build up an idealistic relationship to it's greatest level, they'll turn their back on you, and point out that it was all you who made the difference. "You showed me that we can't put our own desires above everyone else." "If I chose you over them, I wouldn't be the person you fell in love with." "It's because I love you, and what you showed me, that I have to do this."

And then he/she walks away, he/she lives, the Many live, and you die.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I think in any indepth RPG, you end up playing shrink to your companions, since generally, people without issues generally would not have much motive to follow perfect strangers on what are often characterized as futile, overwhelming quests.

[BelgarathMTH]

Hmm, I never thought about it this way before, but in these games, if you want to see all the dialogues and get the personal quests, you do have to give them unconditional positive regard. They're usually programmed to shut down on you and have nothing to say if you give them the least little criticism, disagree with them, or heaven forbid, have an argument with them.

Then they usually fall in love with you just because you gave them UPR. What's that called in psych, transferrence?

I guess the closest character to breaking the pattern in Dragon Age would be Sten, who actually opens up more if you play alpha dog with him and tell him to keep his place, and who shuts down on you if you try to be nice to him. Or anybody else, for that matter.

Other people in here already said pretty much the same thing, didn't they? But there's my two-one-hundredths of a dollar.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 01 janvier 2011 - 03:58 .

[Addai]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Shinobu wrote...

Yes, totally became a therapy den mother. The heart-to-hearts really made me appreciate the NPCs more.

As a non-HNF PC who romanced Alistair, his bombshell after becoming king was sort of like a "long con" -- totally devastating even though I knew it was coming (via spoilers). He didn't set out to do it, so not really a con, but it had the same: "WTF, your approval is at 100, how could you do this to me?!" feel to it.

I'd love a character who would only turn on you at 100 approval or some such. You over-nobelfied him or her too much, and they love you too much to counter their ideals.


Set up some form of a 'many versus few' delimma which can only be decided by them, and you are the 'few.' In any other stage of the relationship, they'd choose to save you: you're too necessary for the greater good, they're selfish, etc.

But if you build up an idealistic relationship to it's greatest level, they'll turn their back on you, and point out that it was all you who made the difference. "You showed me that we can't put our own desires above everyone else." "If I chose you over them, I wouldn't be the person you fell in love with." "It's because I love you, and what you showed me, that I have to do this."

And then he/she walks away, he/she lives, the Many live, and you die.

(husband)

LOL man you would really see the sparks fly from such a character!

I could really see it if you make the rationalistion coming from a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  The assumption being that you and the other person are becoming "Self actualized" and the other person is making sure you don't back slide from practicing what you preach.


www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Hierarchy_of_Needs.asp

[Addai]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I think in any indepth RPG, you end up playing shrink to your companions, since generally, people without issues generally would not have much motive to follow perfect strangers on what are often characterized as futile, overwhelming quests.

(husband)


Well wanting to make a living, or get rich is one of the most common motivations.   A person can be reasonably psychologically put together but still have that.


You could also have rouges that are somewhat lazy and just don't want to do a normal days work as a tradesman and would rather steal instead.    They however find themselves caught by the authorities and about to face serious repercusions by the law, until.   That is until Mary Sue / Marty Sue PC shows up and is able to recruit them just in the nick of time.    The NPCs are happy because they make good coin doing work that often exciting albeit dangerous.   And they have plenty of time and money to go to the bars and brothels that they could only rarely afford to go.


I also like the idea of noble in trouble, kind of like that mage in Balder's Gate II, whose castle was over run.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 janvier 2011 - 04:26 .

[Addai]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

Hmm, I never thought about it this way before, but in these games, if you want to see all the dialogues and get the personal quests, you do have to give them unconditional positive regard. They're usually programmed to shut down on you and have nothing to say if you give them the least little criticism, disagree with them, or heaven forbid, have an argument with them.

Then they usually fall in love with you just because you gave them UPR. What's that called in psych, transferrence?

I guess the closest character to breaking the pattern in Dragon Age would be Sten, who actually opens up more if you play alpha dog with him and tell him to keep his place, and who shuts down on you if you try to be nice to him. Or anybody else, for that matter.

Other people in here already said pretty much the same thing, didn't they? But there's my two-one-hundredths of a dollar.

(husband)


It is indeed transference, and Alistair is a poster boy for it with his relationship with Duncan.    (His transference I'm sure came from just a few amiable conversations with Duncan here and there rather than hours and hours of lieing on a couch doing psychoanalysis).

Modifié par Addai67, 01 janvier 2011 - 04:24 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...



(husband)


Well wanting to make a living, or get rich is one of the most common motivations.   A person can be reasonably psychologically put together but still have that.

Under normal circumstances, yeah. But given your average RPG involves what might be an excessively dangerous, even suicidal mission. It's one thing to want to get rich, it's another thing to unecessarily risk life and limb. Of course, said companion might be in a position where they have nothing left to lsoe, so are willing to take the risk.

But companions either without issues or some unfulfilled desire or lingering skeleton in the closet would probably not be as interesting in such a situation. At least for me. "Normal", "stable", "healthy" just aren't as much fun or interesting for me as those who are rather mental.

And by mental, I don't necessarily mean overly angsty, broody, whatever. It could be something like an irrational phobia of something normally harmless, or racist/bigoted attitudes that need to be addressed. There's many possibilities beyond the standard love/trust/daddy issues.

You could also have rouges that are somewhat lazy and just don't want to do a normal days work as a tradesman and would rather theif instead.    They however find themselves caught by the authorities and about to face serious repercusions by the law, until.   That is until Mary Sue / Marty Sue PC shows up and is able to recruit them just in the nick of time.    The NPCs are happy because they make good coin doing work that often exciting albeit dangerous.   And they have plenty of time and money to go to the bars and brothels that they could only rarely afford to go.

That certainly could be fun and interesting for a companion, though such an individual could also have issues. Wanting to be a lazy bum instead of a productive member of society could very well be a result of something else. Maybe they have an allergy to work.

I also like the idea of noble in trouble, kind of like that mage in Balder's Gate II, whose castle was over run.

Nalia? Even she had issues. She was your typically naieve rich kid rebel who thinks her wanting to help the "peasants" makes her a rebel against her wealthy, influential mommy and daddy.

[Addai]

Under normal circumstances, yeah. But given your average RPG involves
what might be an excessively dangerous, even suicidal mission. It's one
thing to want to get rich, it's another thing to unecessarily risk life
and limb. Of course, said companion might be in a position where they
have nothing left to lsoe, so are willing to take the risk.

But
companions either without issues or some unfulfilled desire or lingering
skeleton in the closet would probably not be as interesting in such a
situation. At least for me. "Normal", "stable", "healthy" just aren't as
much fun or interesting for me as those who are rather mental.

And
by mental, I don't necessarily mean overly angsty, broody, whatever. It
could be something like an irrational phobia of something normally
harmless, or racist/bigoted attitudes that need to be addressed. There's
many possibilities beyond the standard love/trust/daddy issues.

(huband)

Well I'm talking about the convention of the Crap sack world.   That seems pretty common these days.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld


They are some people that would rather risk a bit, and adventure then have to deal with the problems of being a peasant.   I would say for this to be somewhat feasible they really need to extraordinarily talented.    They are the olympic level athlete (or at least the equivalent of a professional athlete)  in their area of expertise.    And with that level of skill also comes things like confidence and overconfidence, and the willingness to not settle for the usual.



Nalia? Even she had issues. She was your typically naieve rich kid rebel
who thinks her wanting to help the "peasants" makes her a rebel against
her wealthy, influential mommy and daddy.

lol yeah I remember her being kind of annoying.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 janvier 2011 - 04:49 .

[Shinobu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Shinobu wrote...

Yes, totally became a therapy den mother. The heart-to-hearts really made me appreciate the NPCs more.

As a non-HNF PC who romanced Alistair, his bombshell after becoming king was sort of like a "long con" -- totally devastating even though I knew it was coming (via spoilers). He didn't set out to do it, so not really a con, but it had the same: "WTF, your approval is at 100, how could you do this to me?!" feel to it.

I'd love a character who would only turn on you at 100 approval or some such. You over-nobelfied him or her too much, and they love you too much to counter their ideals.


Set up some form of a 'many versus few' delimma which can only be decided by them, and you are the 'few.' In any other stage of the relationship, they'd choose to save you: you're too necessary for the greater good, they're selfish, etc.

But if you build up an idealistic relationship to it's greatest level, they'll turn their back on you, and point out that it was all you who made the difference. "You showed me that we can't put our own desires above everyone else." "If I chose you over them, I wouldn't be the person you fell in love with." "It's because I love you, and what you showed me, that I have to do this."

And then he/she walks away, he/she lives, the Many live, and you die.

Sounds like Carrot Ironfoundersson. "Personal isn't the same as important." (Though he went back on it to chase Angua to Uberwald.) But back to DA -- this is pretty much what happens with Alistair, especially if the PC chooses to take one for the team at the end.

Modifié par Shinobu, 01 janvier 2011 - 06:22 .