[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...
It is, because ranged weapons having nothing to do with the duelist, so why should she have anything to do with them?[/quote]
Why shouldn't she? Why can't she?
I'm not saying she should, so you asking me to justify that position makes no sense. I'm asking why she can't.
[quote]I have not been trying to say that. Don't try to tell me what I'm arguing. I'm saying it makes more sense. You just want the option to act irrationally and control a character you aren't playing as in the same way you would control your PC's actions. Why is that nonsensical option mandatory to have?[/quote]
Ignoring your baseless claims that the option would be nonsensical, including the option would carry almost no cost, and it would expand the audience for the game. That's why it's a good idea.
[quote]This is what I do:
*turn off roleplaying switch*
*Defeat the enemy or bring back my PC as quickly as possible*
*Turn back on roleplaying switch*[/quote]
So, by your own admission, the way the game is designed now it forces you out of the game, requiring you to metagame around it.
My approach doesn't require that. I don't need to stop roleplaying ever.
[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Swashbuckler is a web unique to Isabela. Every companion gets a spec unique to them. At least that's what I heard last.[/quote]
Does Hawke get a unique web? If not, why not? Why does Hawke get shortchanged? How is it that everyone else in the world has a unique skill and Hawke doesn't?
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
But that's the problem with the 'all or nothing' approach. What benefit is there to you (the player) taking control of the entire party?[/quote]
Narrative coherence. Now the party is more able to behave in a sensical manner.
[quote]That's what I mean by you are now a writer. If I am effectively my whole party, from a narrative perspective the Morrigan romance does not exist. Instead, I (the player) am writing the relationship for both characters instead of taking the role of a particular character experiencing the relationship which changes the structure.[/quote]
I want to be clear that I've never asked for the removal of intra-party banter. But when dealing with the outside world, they should act as a team that wasn't designed by a crazy person.
I played a Warden with crippling social anxiety. Why was the party having him be the spokesperson?
[quote]If you are playing DnD and your friend wants to play a dual wielding barbarian, aside from advice what impact do you have in how he chooses to implement his character?[/quote]
None, but that has nothing to do with DA2. DA2 is a single-player game.
[quote]Isabella is intended as an individual person with a personality independent of what I (player or character) may think of her.[/quote]
That's where you're wrong. She's an individual person independent of what your player character thinks of her, but that does not require she have a personality independent of what the player thinks of her.
You're needlessly conflating the player and his character.
[quote]Bioware giving us less control over her weapons/outfits is a step forward in this direction. It gets us closer to the idea that you are not your party which I think is necessary.[/quote]
But that introduces now problems. If I control only one member of the party, and that member isn't a suitable leader for that party, what happens then? Either the game needs to wrest control for me, or the party no longer makes any sense.
Neither of those solutions is a good one.
Letting the player control the whole party, though, eliminates that problem.
[quote]If Bioware wants to let you impact how your companions equip themselves, a far better method is through conversation; force the PC to persuade Isabella to equip a bow, which then impacts the narrative. But as it is, simply equipping Isabella with any rogue weapon does contrast the tone of her character. [/quote]
That's only true if you presuppose that Isabela's character has an established tone over which you, the player, has no control.
Once again, you're presupposing your conclusion.
[quote]But with your position, a sandbox is the only possible style. That was my point with the Xzar/Monty being able to kill your character and you taking effective control of them instead since they will then be treated as 'your' characters. If Bioware actually allows you to kill your PC, only one of two things can happen:
1) A sandbox world so that the characters which you are now playing can complete various side quests without too large an impact on the world itself (TES style)
2) A main quest which takes into account all the various combinations which can result from the player. In other words, Xzar and Monty become the 'main characters' of the main quest.[/quote]
Now you're just making baseless assertions. Why would the game need to become one of these two things?
Sticking with the BG example, the death of the Bhaalspawn might mean that you'd no longer get attacked by assassins (since their target is dead - though Sarevok could still view the party as a threat). But the coast-wide iron conspiracy would still exist, and all those plots could still be followed. There'd be very little need to adjust the game at all, save perhaps for the very end.
[quote]You pointed out that you have control of your followers 'all of the time'. If this is the case, how exactly do you go about talking to a follower in a tabletop session?[/quote]
I'd tell the DM what my character says to the follower, though I'd only ever be doing that in cases where I'd want to be overheard, because otherwise I could just have the follower do things without having to make the discussion explicit.
[quote]You missed my point. If you are playing a tabletop and you are playing both a Wizard and a Fighter, show me how you create a relationship between the two characters. It's utterly impossible. You are essentially talking to yourself. Your wizard can have a relationship with the party. Your fighter can have a separate relationship with the party. But they are effectively dead to each other for purposes of role-playing.[/quote]
By that reasoning, no author can write a book containing two characters which have a relationship with each other.
And that's obviously false.
[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...
You know he's just going to either ignore or dismiss this right?[/quote]
Does it matter whether he knows that?
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 janvier 2011 - 08:52 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
Convincing them that they should carry out the necessary training, practice etc to get them to a useful level.
I'm listening. Elaborate.
