1044 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

wolfsite wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

37-38 pages is there even a point to this topic anymore? no offense tc but i think every point has been covered now its just repeating the same thing

I think it's just a battle to have the last word now.

In Internet it is impossible to get the last word. Thus one should never aim for it. The same is true outside Internet. What you can get is silence.

[wolfsite]

moilami wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

37-38 pages is there even a point to this topic anymore? no offense tc but i think every point has been covered now its just repeating the same thing

I think it's just a battle to have the last word now.

In Internet it is impossible to get the last word. Thus one should never aim for it. The same is true outside Internet. What you can get is silence.

Not true, the topic can get locked meaning someone does get the last word, though that is normally a moderator.

[Guitar-Hero]

moilami wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course it could penetrate me (... that sounds wrong on so many levels...)! That arrow could kill me! Any sharp object with enough applied force could kill me. Hell it wouldn't even have to be sharp. I'm saying that an arrow like that, hiting a target in armor (or, in the case of a bear, with a thick hide) would do little to no damage at all, if not applied the correct force. Too little and it won't penetrate into flesh (or even worse the skin/armor it self), too much and you will have to hope for having hit a vital organ on the way through (or wait for the angry bear to bleed to death). And as an archer it takes years of pratice to know jsut the right amount of force to apply to inflict maximum damage, adjust to the wind and hit the target.

I agree. Isabella can't use bows. Not even crossbows because they are not bows like longbows and shortbows are not bows. Also Isabella can begin to giggle hysterically when she tries to use bow or just outright refuse to use such "difficult" weapons. Last time she said what's the point to use bows. I went speechless because I did not know how to say her this:

Wow... I really like her shirt... did you say something?

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...

moilami wrote...

Well, yeah, of course you would talk to yourself, but it would still be you rolelaying two (or more) different characters, and there is no reason why you could not do that. If you would be spectacular roleplayer you could, for example, roleplay 6 different characters. I believe those who write books do a lot of "roleplaying" with all the characters they have in the book (and even more metagaming) when they write the book.

But it's the presentation that's relevant. A film director who crafts 6 different characters will obtains 6 different actors, each occupying one role. A writer will produce a work where you envision 6 different characters, all speaking their lines. A writer is also not improvising the characters' lines but has a substantial amount of time to develop how they want that interaction to work. Role-playing offers neither. You have one person filling those multiple roles and being expected to produce their lines on the spot. The effect is usually very lacking. Also remember that metagaming is often viewed as an RPG no-no.

Took some time and some thinking for me to understand we are speaking of different things. You spoke about final product(?). I spoke about making the product. Anyway a writer can RP characters he is including in the book. And more, he can even RP characters he wont ever include in the book while he works on the book.

The timespan doesn't have to be linear either, and he can jump back and forth in time and "reload" the game and re-roleplay it, meaning he can at any time change anything from the book. He can do all that because he have all freedom to do whatever whenever. And to make the final product good, he would have to use both metagaming and excellent roleplaying abilities.

[moilami]

wolfsite wrote...

moilami wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

37-38 pages is there even a point to this topic anymore? no offense tc but i think every point has been covered now its just repeating the same thing

I think it's just a battle to have the last word now.

In Internet it is impossible to get the last word. Thus one should never aim for it. The same is true outside Internet. What you can get is silence.

Not true, the topic can get locked meaning someone does get the last word, though that is normally a moderator.

Then everyone will get silence and none will get the last word. You see, if you write the "last words" you wont ever know what were the words what were left unsaid - yet they certainly existed in someone's head.

[moilami]

Steffen wrote...

moilami wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course it could penetrate me (... that sounds wrong on so many levels...)! That arrow could kill me! Any sharp object with enough applied force could kill me. Hell it wouldn't even have to be sharp. I'm saying that an arrow like that, hiting a target in armor (or, in the case of a bear, with a thick hide) would do little to no damage at all, if not applied the correct force. Too little and it won't penetrate into flesh (or even worse the skin/armor it self), too much and you will have to hope for having hit a vital organ on the way through (or wait for the angry bear to bleed to death). And as an archer it takes years of pratice to know jsut the right amount of force to apply to inflict maximum damage, adjust to the wind and hit the target.

I agree. Isabella can't use bows. Not even crossbows because they are not bows like longbows and shortbows are not bows. Also Isabella can begin to giggle hysterically when she tries to use bow or just outright refuse to use such "difficult" weapons. Last time she said what's the point to use bows. I went speechless because I did not know how to say her this:

Wow... I really like her shirt... did you say something?

Um, I don't remember xD

[TheRealJayDee]

Well, after reading through this whole thread, I kinda have to agree with Sylvius on many point, even if I don't share all of his ideas about RPGing. But he does ask legit questions.



Not being able to get Isabella to taking basic crossbow lessons from Varric feels strange, while having full control over her talents and attributes. I might (in a second playthrough or so) punish her for refusing ranged combat 101 by denying her any dexterity enhancment. She will only get more and more constituion:



Isabella: Well, Hawke, I'd really need to start working on my acrobatics now. And on my dual throat slitting. A swashbuckler needs to stay agile, you know...!?



Hawke: I know, Isa dear, I know. Yeah, that... OR... I'd much rather see you run another 50 times around that beautiful patio of ours.



Isabella: What? Again? But... but... that is so not me...



Hawke: Oh, and don't forget to have Varric beat you with a stick afterwards.

[moilami]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Well, after reading through this whole thread, I kinda have to agree with Sylvius on many point, even if I don't share all of his ideas about RPGing. But he does ask legit questions.

Not being able to get Isabella to taking basic crossbow lessons from Varric feels strange, while having full control over her talents and attributes. I might (in a second playthrough or so) punish her for refusing ranged combat 101 by denying her any dexterity enhancment. She will only get more and more constituion:

Isabella: Well, Hawke, I'd really need to start working on my acrobatics now. And on my dual throat slitting. A swashbuckler needs to stay agile, you know...!?

Hawke: I know, Isa dear, I know. Yeah, that... OR... I'd much rather see you run another 50 times around that beautiful patio of ours.

Isabella: What? Again? But... but... that is so not me...

Hawke: Oh, and don't forget to have Varric beat you with a stick afterwards.

LOOOOLLOOOLLOLOL

I would just pump her dex and con. But not for fighting...

[moilami]

How long untill it is released? Can't believe I am waiting for some computer game.

[Il Divo]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

False dichotomy.  Morrigan could still be voiced in all the places she's already voiced in DAO.  The only unvoiced lines would be the player selected lines, which are also not voiced in DAO as it is now.

So there's no change to the voice.  The only change is in which character is the one doing the speaking on behalf of the party when the player selects those dialogue options. [/quote]

Which contradicts the notion of Morrigan being a separate character. Morrigan speaking on behalf of the party is still Morrigan speaking. Sten speaking on behalf of the party is still Sten speaking. Both acting in place of party leader should have substantial differences in how every character reacts. And no, I do not relish the idea of 'imagining' those interactions any more than you would enjoy the idea of imagining Morrigan as party leader.

Imagine taking Morrigan into the Circle of Magi as party lead and as party's voice decides to aid the Circle Mages. It's not sensible by any stretch. Even taking into account that Morrigan must represent the party's voice, not her own, it's illogical to think that she wouldn't provide her own spin/perspective on dialogue, to the point of refusing to lead the party in that instance. Hence why I say Bioware would now be forced to write different scenarios to account for each character as party leader.

[quote]
Why would you think that?  The companions can still be voiced when speaking on their own behalf; they just wouldn't be voiced when speaking on behalf of the party. [/quote]

As I said, Morrigan (voice of the party) is still Morrigan. What benefit is there to having her as party leader if there is no distinction within the game world? If Shale walks around Orzammar talking to people, a reaction is necessary. If I have Oghren the drunk lead the landsmeet with Eamon, a reaction is necessary.

[quote]
If the game were designed like this, then either BioWare would need to limit the dog's ability to start conversations, or just not give us a non-speaking party member. [/quote]

Or continue to limit starting conversations to the PC, as they do now.

[quote]
Not at all.  If the NPCs react to the party as a group, and address the party as a group, then nothing needs to change from spokesperson to spokesperson. [/quote]

This is illogical and defies the purpose of having a 'party face'. The very reason why there is a party face is that the person occupies a speaking position, not your PC. Conversations do not 'flow' when I'm busy imagining these character interactions but when I can view them happening on screen. The exception is made for the PC because it's purposely intended that you attach in your own voice. But the effect is lacking with Morrigan, who already has a VA, to suddenly have lines without dialogue.   

[quote]
I've given this a lot more thought than you have. [/quote]

Yes, I know. That's part of the problem.

[quote]

And that's one way to do it, but that would deny us detailed tactical combat.  Either we'd have no party at all, or we'd need to let the AI run all the companions.  Do you want to let the AI do that? [/quote]

And it's a contradiction I'm willing to endure for the time being. I'm not fully confident in the AI Bioware could ever give us, which is why I accept partial control over these characters but I fail to see why your conclusion (total party control) should be desired only because it must be 'all or nothing'. I do not see how because I can move Isabella about that I must also be given the option to speak as her in addition.

[quote]No it isn't.  And if that's important to you, don't change Sten's weapons.

If, however, you do want to make Sten a dedicated archer (as I did on more than one occasion), Go Ahead! It's your game, after all. [/quote]

But the goal is to build actual unity between gameplay and narrative, when it's possible. That's one reason why people were disappointed by the Blood Mage; fun gameplay, but there was no narration. Anders in Awakening remarks upon being made a Blood Mage, which is a step in the right direction.

[quote]
That's not unlike giving Wynne the Blood Mage specialisation, and I've already offered possible justifications for that.

Moreover, you don't need to ask Alistair about longbows in that circumstance, since you're already playing everyone.  You could have that conversation take place off-screen. [/quote]

But you are not playing everyone, which is your error. For you to be playing everyone, you'd have to choose all their interactions, from when they first join the party to when they die. Alistair mocking the Mages? Alistair reminiscing about Duncan? Alistair telling us he is a King's bastard? I can say I don't want this, since I'm 'playing' Alistair.

In full effect, for me to play everyone I have to have the same degree of control over Alistair's lines as I do over my own PC's.




[quote]I would argue that the game doesn't need to offer a compelling reason for an insane man to save the town from orcs.  The man can simply leave the town (BG-style open travel helps with this a lot, though DAO was adequate). [/quote]

Whether from a tabletop or a gaming perspective, this is rarely possible, which is my entire argument against you wanting a PC afraid to be party lead. In a tabletop, to forge a coherent party, the DM requires that you create a character willing to endure working with others. In Jade Empire, to forge a coherent narrative, the game requires that your character wishes to save Master Li. In role-playing video games, for your character to be the party face, they require that you do not play a character afraid to lead the party. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[quote]
There is a limitation to what range of possible stories the game accommodates, sure.  But nothing I'm suggesting requires that we change that.  If you want your Warden to leave Ferelden and just not care about the Blight, sorry, but the game simply doesn't model that outcome.  That doesn't mean your character can't do it, but you don't get to see it played out on screen.

This is more important in tabletop games where the enjoyment of other players, and the DM, need to be taken into account.

This isn't a problem in CRPGs.  This is another advantage of not requiring the participation of other people. [/quote]

But you're still missing the point; the game must always limit some factor of your role-playing potential. You would not have a story period if you could role-play any character imaginable. I can't role-play a Nihilist who doesn't give a damn about the Grey Wardens or the Blight. My role-playing is always suited to the experience provided, not the other way around. It's important to remember that. Game setting trumps role-playing every time, even in role-playin games odd as that may sound.

[quote]
I played such a character in DAO, and it mostly worked.  But it would have worked better if Leliana or Wynne could have been the one interacting with NPCs (which, as I explained above, wouldn't require extensive additional resources). [/quote]

But how would this change the game experience at all? Seeing Leliana stand at the forefront of the party instead of your PC? Leliana offering to aid people, Leliana threatening to kill people,etc?  

[quote]
But not necessarily an immutable personality.  This is where you're making your mistake.

A step in one direction is not the entire journey. [/quote]

But my point is that the game is striving towards making that journey and has gone a little bit further in Dragon Age 2. I'm one of those players who spends who can spend countless hours customizing my PC but I don't really give a crap when it comes to my party. That was the great thing about Jade Empire's system in that you had no control over your party member's abilities, although I was disappointed by my own lack of customization options.

I'm willing to accept control over my party when my PC dies or at odd moments because the AI may not be able to keep up with my preferred playstyle, but otherwise I always restrict myself to the PC's actions.

[quote]
There's no strict contradiction, there.  Isabela did equip a bow, and Isabela did say she never would.  Either she changed her mind, or she was lying before. [/quote]

Which should be addressed. Offering an off-screen explanation is not an explanation unfortunately. If Isabella's hatred of bows is an aspect of her personality and I change that aspect, the narrative should account for this. I refer you back to the example of how people were disappointed with the Blood Mage narrative. Isabella is a character. If that character does something odd, there should be exposition on it.

[quote]
If you play DAO with a human mage, and then later play DAO with a dwarf rogue, is Alistair the same person each time?  Does he need to be?  Is there some aspect of the game that breaks if he has a somewhat different personality on each playthrough?

No.  The game works fine.  Mutable personalities work. [/quote]

On the whole? No, but it does result in character inconcistencies which should be avoided. I understand that some people are willing to endure them, but it's the equivalent of arguing that Bioware should let the player start at level 20 or start the game by battling the Archdemon; it's contrary to how they envisioned the game experience. This is why I view the question of 'Whose game is it' as loaded; it's Bioware's game, they told the story. They designed Dragon Age to be played start to finish, they designed Varric to employ a bow and nothing else, etc.

[quote]
KotOR is a terrific example in my favour, because of the jailbreak sequence.  You control a single character, who is not your PC, for an extended period. [/quote]

Actually it's a terrible example. The very point of my Kotor example is that without the central protagonist there is no experience, which was my point with Baldur's Gate. If Revan dies, the game would have to rewrite the story so that Carth, Mission, Canderous, etc, is now the main protagonist depending on when you die, provide new situations, etc. The same with Planescape Torment in which without the Nameless One there actually is no story being told; it's all about how he became Immortal. There is no evil guy coming to destroy the world whom we can defer to for that story. If Morte, Ignus, etc, ditches the Nameless One, where is the plot?  

It's actually ironic because the jailbreak sequence represents exactly what I don't want from my gaming experiences. The characters speaking without actual lines did not mesh well at all as a cohesive experience which simply reinforces the idea that we are better off with the central protagonist.  

[quote]
You wouldn't need to.  There would be no point, and it would add nothing to the game for the other participants.  Why bother? [/quote]

He is there, participating in your adventures. Of course there's a point. If he's truly 'your' character and not simply a gameplay mechanic.

[quote]
Seriously?  Have you never read a book?  They have multiple characters all written by the same author all the time. [/quote]

Again, it's not the same thing. In a movie, a director will hire multiple actors to fill multiple roles. In a book, an author is not improvising responses on the spot. This is why you saying you can role-play multiple characters while they interact with each other effectively is difficult to believe. My example of the fighter and the wizard.

Perhaps you can role-play the fighter effectively with the party. Perhaps you can role-play the wizard effectively with the party. But I doubt that you are actually able to role-play them interacting with each other. The effect is very lacking watching one person attempt multiple personalities with himself, far more lacking than two people occupying two roles.

[quote]
I never said they needed to be first person viewpoints.  The characters are not me; I view them from a third-person perspective.  They view themselves from a first-person perspective, and to roleplay them I need to know what that perspective tells them, but that's how I view them.

It's just like an author writing a book.[/quote]

I would say most role-playing dialogue is typically done from the first person perspective, but it makes no difference. How you conceive of the dialogue doesn't change the lacking presentation. Role-playing requires an action-reaction relationship.

DM performs an action, your character reacts. Your character performs an action, DM's character reacts. When you control both action and reaction, the effect is lost. Try having two characters which you control argue with each other for example. The effect will almost always be lacking than between two actual players.

An author purposely has that control over all aspects of the world, very much like a DM. You as the player typically aren't given that power, which is why I say you can have characters both interact with the world but not each other.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:16 .

[Il Divo]

moilami wrote...

Took some time and some thinking for me to understand we are speaking of different things. You spoke about final product(?). I spoke about making the product. Anyway a writer can RP characters he is including in the book. And more, he can even RP characters he wont ever include in the book while he works on the book.

The timespan doesn't have to be linear either, and he can jump back and forth in time and "reload" the game and re-roleplay it, meaning he can at any time change anything from the book. He can do all that because he have all freedom to do whatever whenever. And to make the final product good, he would have to use both metagaming and excellent roleplaying abilities.

Exactly. All tabletop roleplaying is done 'in the moment' which means the author has the benefit of hindsight/futuresight we don't. And it's not just about thinking up a proper response for both your characters, but to make the presentation believable. 

Imagine role-playing two characters who are brothers and the difficulty this entails. The characters have to acknowledge each other's existence (barring exceptionally clever role-players), but a single player will have difficulty managing this. Saying it's 'impossible' may have been extreme on my part, but it certainly isn't a cake walk even for your average role-player because it creates the awkward dynamic of watching someone talk to himself.  

[NKKKK]

What do you expect from Casual Age 2?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Neither is an author roleplaying per say. He is craeting roles/characters, and imagining what they are like. Creating a character is quite different than playing one. Add to that, that the author is also adding the entire setting for said characters to come to life, and you have something very much different than roleplaying.

[AlanC9]

NKKKK wrote...

What do you expect from Casual Age 2?

Dude, you're just phoning it in. Try harder.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Neither is an author roleplaying per say. He is craeting roles/characters, and imagining what they are like. Creating a character is quite different than playing one. Add to that, that the author is also adding the entire setting for said characters to come to life, and you have something very much different than roleplaying.

Creating a character is different, but when you roleplay a character you will continuously keep creating it because you can't make the char perfect and complete in the first place. You make some kind of frame and fill on some details and start playing. Then, something happens, and you will have to think how your char would react to it and did it change him. That is roleplaying.


Edit: And authors probably do that "roleplaying" quite some when they write what all characters in their books does. Though they might not call it "roleplaying".

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:39 .

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...

moilami wrote...

Took some time and some thinking for me to understand we are speaking of different things. You spoke about final product(?). I spoke about making the product. Anyway a writer can RP characters he is including in the book. And more, he can even RP characters he wont ever include in the book while he works on the book.

The timespan doesn't have to be linear either, and he can jump back and forth in time and "reload" the game and re-roleplay it, meaning he can at any time change anything from the book. He can do all that because he have all freedom to do whatever whenever. And to make the final product good, he would have to use both metagaming and excellent roleplaying abilities.

Exactly. All tabletop roleplaying is done 'in the moment' which means the author has the benefit of hindsight/futuresight we don't. And it's not just about thinking up a proper response for both your characters, but to make the presentation believable. 

Imagine role-playing two characters who are brothers and the difficulty this entails. The characters have to acknowledge each other's existence (barring exceptionally clever role-players), but a single player will have difficulty managing this. Saying it's 'impossible' may have been extreme on my part, but it certainly isn't a cake walk even for your average role-player because it creates the awkward dynamic of watching someone talk to himself.  

Well I would say only "live action roleplaying" is done in realtime. The rest are done in some other time&space.

Regarding RPing two brothers: if you can RP one, you should be able to RP two. You just switch roles. But that is of course hard mentally, much harder than people may think, because how can you say you switch roles well and do not let metagaming happen? But that goes with all roleplaying. You always have information what your char does not have, and most probably you metagame more or less always - even if you would not realize it. Thought processes in brains are very complex and much of that is never put in conscious words. However, that is not a reason to not do your best and bite the mental challenge of RPing.

Edit: I like your postings, you put a lot of thought in them.

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 05:04 .

[Dubya75]

[quote]Steffen wrote...

[quote]moilami wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course it could penetrate me (... that sounds wrong on so many levels...)! That arrow could kill me! Any sharp object with enough applied force could kill me. Hell it wouldn't even have to be sharp. I'm saying that an arrow like that, hiting a target in armor (or, in the case of a bear, with a thick hide) would do little to no damage at all, if not applied the correct force. Too little and it won't penetrate into flesh (or even worse the skin/armor it self), too much and you will have to hope for having hit a vital organ on the way through (or wait for the angry bear to bleed to death). And as an archer it takes years of pratice to know jsut the right amount of force to apply to inflict maximum damage, adjust to the wind and hit the target.[/quote]

I agree. Isabella can't use bows. Not even crossbows because they are not bows like longbows and shortbows are not bows. Also Isabella can begin to giggle hysterically when she tries to use bow or just outright refuse to use such "difficult" weapons. Last time she said what's the point to use bows. I went speechless because I did not know how to say her this:



Gawk....Amazing curves....errr....(clears throat)....on that bow!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

And, imo, a story should never encourage a terrible idea that runs contrary to the character.

I suggest that should be left to the player, especially since the player might be able to construct a scenario wherein being an archer doesn't run contrary to Sten's character.

Just because you can't imagine how to make something work doesn't mean other players can't, and if they can, then by denying them the opportunity you're just being malicious.

Meltemph wrote...

It adds to her definition of character.

So would her desire to learn bows, if she had such a desire.  Why do you insist that every player experience Isabela in the same way?

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

Creating a character is different, but when you roleplay a character you will continuously keep creating it because you can't make the char perfect and complete in the first place. You make some kind of frame and fill on some details and start playing. Then, something happens, and you will have to think how your char would react to it and did it change him. That is roleplaying.

I disagree.  You create a complete character in advance, and then how he reacts to the situations he encounters is a matter of simple arithmetic.

The approach you describe runs the risk of creating an inconsistent character.

When I start a game, I know everything my character values, ever ideal to which he aspires, and all of his ambitions.  I also know where the gaps in his knowledge or opinions are (for example, I played a city elf in DAO who'd never met a dwarf, and had never had occasion to think about dwarves, and thus held no opinions regarding them).

moilami wrote...

Regarding RPing two brothers: if you can RP one, you should be able to RP two. You just switch roles. But that is of course hard mentally, much harder than people may think, because how can you say you switch roles well and do not let metagaming happen? But that goes with all roleplaying. You always have information what your char does not have, and most probably you metagame more or less always - even if you would not realize it.

Here I agree.  If you can roleplay one character without metagaming (and based on some comments here, particularly with regard to the Redcliffe quest in DAO, many people can't), then you can roleplay two.  You just have to compartmentalise your mind so that each time you make a decision on one character's behalf you have access only to the information that character possesses.

[-flashblade-]

Wow one day not here and yeah well you miss alot.

But back to one of the matters at hand: Dragon Age Origins has a tooltip during loadscreens that goes something like this:

"Equip each character with a melee and a ranged weapon so that you are prepared for any situation."

So one game down the road they force unsound battle tactics onto the player. Well done BioWare thats progress!

[Il Divo]

moilami wrote...

Well I would say only "live action roleplaying" is done in realtime. The rest are done in some other time&space.

Regarding RPing two brothers: if you can RP one, you should be able to RP two. You just switch roles. But that is of course hard mentally, much harder than people may think, because how can you say you switch roles well and do not let metagaming happen? But that goes with all roleplaying. You always have information what your char does not have, and most probably you metagame more or less always - even if you would not realize it. Thought processes in brains are very complex and much of that is never put in conscious words. However, that is not a reason to not do your best and bite the mental challenge of RPing.

Edit: I like your postings, you put a lot of thought in them.

Thank you. Good discussion is always appreciated.

Now with regards to your post, what you say is true, but it's not only about role-playing both characters. I will say with one character, role-playing is easier. Two characters is doable, but it becomes more difficult as the number of characters you control goes up. This is because whenever the DM pushes the narrative forward, you' must take into account multiple perspectives. I've also found that this often leads to players choosing one character whom they prefer while the second tends to function only as an extra sword in combat.  

But my main problem with multiple characters isn't role-playing them, per se. Let's say I decide to make a Lawful Good Fighter and a Neutral Evil Wizard. We are attacked by bandits and after killing most of them, the last bandit throws down his sword and begs for mercy. Your Fighter might be inclined to spare him while the Wizard insists on killing him, but this can't be effectively role-played since they are both controlled by the same player. For this to be done, you either need an exceptionally talented improvisation or for someone else to pretend to be your character for you (which I could never do). This is what I mean by your characters can have a relationship with the party (characters controlled by other players), but not with each other.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

Which contradicts the notion of Morrigan being a separate character.[/quote]
It prevents her from being entirely separate from the party's group will, but that's by design.  She's voluntarily part of the party.  Until she leaves the party, she's subservient to the party.



[quote]Morrigan speaking on behalf of the party is still Morrigan speaking. Sten speaking on behalf of the party is still Sten speaking.[/quote]
Yes, but they're not saying what they want to say.  They're saying what the party wants to say, to which they've given tacit approval by being in the party.

And if you think the party dialogue needs to be different because Morrigan or Sten is the one saying it, then it's trivial to view the player's dialogue options as abstractions of the words actually spoken.  Just like keyword dialogue systems.



[quote]Both acting in place of party leader should have substantial differences in how every character reacts.[/quote]
Stop assuming the PC, or anyone, is the party leader.  The party could well be a group of equals with no leader.



[quote]Imagine taking Morrigan into the Circle of Magi as party lead and as party's voice decides to aid the Circle Mages. It's not sensible by any stretch. Even taking into account that Morrigan must represent the party's voice, not her own, it's illogical to think that she wouldn't provide her own spin/perspective on dialogue, to the point of refusing to lead the party in that instance. Hence why I say Bioware would now be forced to write different scenarios to account for each character as party leader. [/quote]
They've already written interjections from each character when it's necessary for that character to speak to the rest of the party with her own voice.  They could just keep those.  Amidst Morrigan's speech on behalf of the party, Morrigan could complain to the party about what it was having her say (just as she currently complains about what the Warden says now) in a last ditch effort to change the party's mind.

The Circle Tower is a terrific example of how this would already work just as it does in DAO, except some other party member would be the party spokesperson.  DAO would require very little change for this to work.



[quote]As I said, Morrigan (voice of the party) is still Morrigan. What benefit is there to having her as party leader if there is no distinction within the game world?[/quote]
Roleplaying veracity.  If Morrigan's the best choice to speak in those circumstances, then not having her speak damages the game's narrative.  The party becomes less believable, because they're doing something incredibly dumb by using the wrong spokesperson.



[quote]If Shale walks around Orzammar talking to people, a reaction is necessary.[/quote]
Some people in Orzammar do react to Shale.  Keep those in.



[quote]If I have Oghren the drunk lead the landsmeet with Eamon, a reaction is necessary. [/quote]
Oghren isn't always drunk.  And regardless, he's speaking on behalf of the party that contains all of the Grey Wardens in Ferelden.

This is not to say that I think the game shouldn't contain a lot more persuade checks, and with mutliple party spokespeople the game could allow all sorts of scenario-specific modifiers on those checks.  That would expand the gameplay.



[quote]Or continue to limit starting conversations to the PC, as they do now. [/quote]
But as I've pointed out, that introduces all sorts of problems.



[quote]This is illogical and defies the purpose of having a 'party face'. The very reason why there is a party face is that the person occupies a speaking position, not your PC. Conversations do not 'flow' when I'm busy imagining these character interactions but when I can view them happening on screen.[/quote]
DAO, designed as I've described, wouldn't change at all from a gameplay perspective when in conversation.  It would just use someone else's stats for the math under the hood.  Nothing about what I'm saying would imapct the game's flow.  You'd still choose silent dialogue options, and NPCs would still speak to you.

What are you talking about?

[quote]The exception is made for the PC because it's purposely intended that you attach in your own voice. But the effect is lacking with Morrigan, who already has a VA, to suddenly have lines without dialogue.[/quote]
That should make it easier, though, as we know how Morrigan talks and what her voice sounds like.

I don't see the problem.



[quote][quote]I've given this a lot more thought than you have. [/quote]
Yes, I know. That's part of the problem.[/quote]
More thought is never part of the problem.

Allow me to quote Isaac Asimov:



[quote]Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our polticial and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge".[/quote]
[quote]Il Divo wrote...

And it's a contradiction I'm willing to endure for the time being. I'm not fully confident in the AI Bioware could ever give us, which is why I accept partial control over these characters but I fail to see why your conclusion (total party control) should be desired only because it must be 'all or nothing'. I do not see how because I can move Isabella about that I must also be given the option to speak as her in addition. [/quote]
I'd like to point out that the option to speak as her costs you nothing.  If you don't want to speak as her - if you think it damages her character - then don't do it.

You don't have to do things you don't want to do.  But that doesn't mean that you have to force everyone else to do it your way.



[quote]But the goal is to build actual unity between gameplay and narrative, when it's possible.[/quote]
Sure, but if th player wants to break that, why stop him?  What does it cost you if I play the game differently from how you would?
[quote]But you are not playing everyone, which is your error. For you to be playing everyone, you'd have to choose all their interactions, from when they first join the party to when they die. Alistair mocking the Mages? Alistair reminiscing about Duncan? Alistair telling us he is a King's bastard? I can say I don't want this, since I'm 'playing' Alistair.

In full effect, for me to play everyone I have to have the same degree of control over Alistair's lines as I do over my own PC's. [/quote]
Playing each character is different from playing every character.

It's like the anyone/everyone distinction.



[quote]Whether from a tabletop or a gaming perspective, this is rarely possible, which is my entire argument against you wanting a PC afraid to be party lead. In a tabletop, to forge a coherent party, the DM requires that you create a character willing to endure working with others.[/quote]
But not necessarily leading others.



[quote]In Jade Empire, to forge a coherent narrative, the game requires that your character wishes to save Master Li.[/quote]
No it doesn't.  It requires only that you take actions consistent with the desire to save Master Li.  Why your character is actually doing it is up to you.


[quote]In role-playing video games, for your character to be the party face, they require that you do not play a character afraid to lead the party. Do you see where I'm going with this?[/quote]
Yes.  You're trying to justify one porrly supported conclusion with a bunch of other poorly supported conclusions.

Why you think that will work, I have no idea.



[quote]But you're still missing the point; the game must always limit some factor of your role-playing potential.[/quote]
No, it doesn't, and that's our disagreement.  And many BioWare games haven't limited your roleplaying at all.

In KotOR, your PC starts on the Endar Spire.  Why he thinks he's there, what he thinks he's doing, how long he thinks he's been there, what he remembers doing on the ship, and what his immediate and long-term goals are, is entirely up to you.  He can be anyone you can imagine.

In BG, when you leave Candlekeep, you can go wherever you like.  You can follow Gorion's advice, or yuo can ignore it, or you can decide it was bad advice and specifically do the opposite.  And why you do those things is up to you.  You could even decide that the entire episode was a figment of your imagination and stand in the field next to Xzar and Montaron forever.

Really, only the voiced PC games have limited our roleplaying.



[quote]But how would this change the game experience at all? Seeing Leliana stand at the forefront of the party instead of your PC? Leliana offering to aid people, Leliana threatening to kill people,etc? [/quote]
If by "game experience" you mean the things happening on your screen, not at all.  Nothing would change.  Only the roleplaying - which happens in your head - would be different.  But since the roleplaying always happens in your head, that's not different either.  It just gives that roleplaying greater flexibility.
[quote]But my point is that the game is striving towards making that journey and has gone a little bit further in Dragon Age 2. I'm one of those players who spends who can spend countless hours customizing my PC but I don't really give a crap when it comes to my party. That was the great thing about Jade Empire's system in that you had no control over your party member's abilities, although I was disappointed by my own lack of customization options.

I'm willing to accept control over my party when my PC dies or at odd moments because the AI may not be able to keep up with my preferred playstyle, but otherwise I always restrict myself to the PC's actions.[/quote]
And I'm the opposite.  My point here is that the game can accommodate us both without extensive extra resources, and without limiting your playstyle at all.



[quote]Which should be addressed. Offering an off-screen explanation is not an explanation unfortunately. If Isabella's hatred of bows is an aspect of her personality and I change that aspect, the narrative should account for this.[/quote]
But is it an aspect of her personality?  In the example you gave, the game doesn't actually tell us this (I don't really see how it could in your game model).  All the game told us is what Isabela said, not what her thoughts actually are.

You're assuming that her testimony was truthful.  Stop assuming that, and the problem goes away.



[quote]I refer you back to the example of how people were disappointed with the Blood Mage narrative. Isabella is a character. If that character does something odd, there should be exposition on it. [/quote]
Would that Blood Mage example has been improved by not having Blood Mage powers available?  Because that's basically what you're advocating.  you're saying that possible discrepancies should be prevented by removing player options, even though the players have the ability to avoid those discrepancies already.

And the advantage here is that the players will have a better idea of when they're risking those discprepancies, so, unlike the Blood Mage example, they can actually avoid them.



[quote]On the whole? No, but it does result in character inconcistencies which should be avoided.[/quote]
No it doesn't.  This is my point.  There's no need for character inconsistencies at all, and having mutable personalities even serves to reduce the risk of them (like if Isabela uses a bow).



[quote]I understand that some people are willing to endure them, but it's the equivalent of arguing that Bioware should let the player start at level 20[/quote]
I think BioWare should let us do that.



[quote]or start the game by battling the Archdemon[/quote]
This is even something they've already done.  NWN let you start in any chapter of the campaign.



[quote]This is why I view the question of 'Whose game is it' as loaded; it's Bioware's game, they told the story. They designed Dragon Age to be played start to finish, they designed Varric to employ a bow and nothing else, etc. [/quote]
And that would, under some circumstances, seem to be true, but then along comes Mike saying "Go ahead! It's your game, after all."



[quote]Actually it's a terrible example. The very point of my Kotor example is that without the central protagonist there is no experience, which was my point with Baldur's Gate. If Revan dies, the game would have to rewrite the story so that Carth, Mission, Canderous, etc, is now the main protagonist depending on when you die, provide new situations, etc. The same with Planescape Torment in which without the Nameless One there actually is no story being told; it's all about how he became Immortal. There is no evil guy coming to destroy the world whom we can defer to for that story. If Morte, Ignus, etc, ditches the Nameless One, where is the plot? [/quote]
Your mistake here is in requiring that the game's authors provide the plot and all of the plot's details.

They can't do that, and if they ever do then the gme can no longer accommodate any roleplaying at all.  The authored narrative is only part of the story.  The player's contribution, the emergent narrative, is at least as important.



[quote]It's actually ironic because the jailbreak sequence represents exactly what I don't want from my gaming experiences.[/quote]
Whereas, it's exactly what I do want.

And we got another one in DAO, so clearly they're not actively moving away from it.



[quote]Again, it's not the same thing. In a movie, a director will hire multiple actors to fill multiple roles. In a book, an author is not improvising responses on the spot.[/quote]
When I'm roleplaying, I'm never just making things up as I go.  I routinely refer back to my character design to ensure that I'm not deviating from it.  So with multiple characters, each character's response is based on his character design, with no knowledge of the other character's design, and then the next character responds similarly.



[quote]This is why you saying you can role-play multiple characters while they interact with each other effectively is difficult to believe.[/quote]
For that to make any sense, you'll have to define what you mean by "effective".  Don't make Stephen Covey's mistake.



[quote]The effect is very lacking watching one person attempt multiple personalities with himself[/quote]
Good thing no one's watching, then.
[quote]Role-playing requires an action-reaction relationship.

DM performs an action, your character reacts. Your character performs an action, DM's character reacts.[/quote]
I don't think I agree.  Roleplaying requires only the player's action or reaction to game stimulus.  That's where the roleplaying is.  The game's reaction to that, or lack thereof, is simply the next piece of stimulus to which the player can react.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 janvier 2011 - 07:13 .

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

Creating a character is different, but when you roleplay a character you will continuously keep creating it because you can't make the char perfect and complete in the first place. You make some kind of frame and fill on some details and start playing. Then, something happens, and you will have to think how your char would react to it and did it change him. That is roleplaying.

I disagree.  You create a complete character in advance, and then how he reacts to the situations he encounters is a matter of simple arithmetic.

The approach you describe runs the risk of creating an inconsistent character.

When I start a game, I know everything my character values, ever ideal to which he aspires, and all of his ambitions.  I also know where the gaps in his knowledge or opinions are (for example, I played a city elf in DAO who'd never met a dwarf, and had never had occasion to think about dwarves, and thus held no opinions regarding them).

(Hahahaha, I like very much how you think.)

In theory that might be true, and I can even imagine it being so if we exclude that "simple" word from arithmetic. And if we create that kind of character, he would be close to a robot, that is a very predictable person - like most are in RPGs. You might not know the exact words he say, but you can know like in some "response wheel" in ME  the general nature of his response.

That is one reason by the way why I play online very chaotic characters as opposed to offline. By playing chaotic characters I decrease the risk of being mind controlled or used for some purpose while maintaining great amount of freedom and individuality. Of course that kind of character could be imagined to be able to describe in mathematical terms how he would react for situation X or Y, but there would be that random factor making him possibly very unpredictable and uncontrollable. Like with 20% chance he will agro in certain situation.

You say you define your characters completely. I can agree with it. Then you say  because of
that you know everything they would do and it is simple mathematic. Yes, I agree mathematics can be made. But in what I don't agree is that you would not have to think how your char would react to it and did it change him (emphasis from my previous post which you picked to disagree). You can define a perfect character (perfect meaning everything defined) and then arguably know his reactions for every situation, but the math you would have to do when in actual encounter in game, and that would be, again, roleplaying. You would think based on variables you have and variables on the scene what would be your character's output. All mathemetics, and yes, I like the way you think, but no, you can't avoid evaluating (roleplaying) even with perfect characters. Finally you would have to evaluate did the scenerio change some parameters in your character like Eli and Ali can be hardened (but why Morri can't be softened) - else your chars would be Stone Made LOOOOOOOL (loved to insert Dwarf chest beating pun).

[Rylor Tormtor]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Well, after reading through this whole thread, I kinda have to agree with Sylvius on many point, even if I don't share all of his ideas about RPGing. But he does ask legit questions.

Not being able to get Isabella to taking basic crossbow lessons from Varric feels strange, while having full control over her talents and attributes. I might (in a second playthrough or so) punish her for refusing ranged combat 101 by denying her any dexterity enhancment. She will only get more and more constituion:

Isabella: Well, Hawke, I'd really need to start working on my acrobatics now. And on my dual throat slitting. A swashbuckler needs to stay agile, you know...!?

Hawke: I know, Isa dear, I know. Yeah, that... OR... I'd much rather see you run another 50 times around that beautiful patio of ours.

Isabella: What? Again? But... but... that is so not me...

Hawke: Oh, and don't forget to have Varric beat you with a stick afterwards.

I would pay money to see that.