1044 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

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.

If Issy does not have big boobs, show some sideass and thigs, I will make a character who is "programmed" to make the worst fate possible for Issy if she begins to refuses to learn bows.


Edit: "Programmed" here would be simple matter of defining #character to be soft to all big boobed, sideass and thig revealing females and become mad to anyone who begins to act moronish and childish.

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 07:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

(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.

He might be predictable to me, but he's my character.  I have to be able to predict what he'd do, because I'm the one who makes him do it.

He's only be predictable to others if they knew the background information, which they don't.

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).

Certainly my characters can change over time.  The cowardly non-leader character I was referring to earlier grew a spine after the Fade sequence, because the Fade forced him to rely on himself (rather than let the companions do everything) and he learned that he could succeed on his own, which he hadn't believed before.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

(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.

He might be predictable to me, but he's my character.  I have to be able to predict what he'd do, because I'm the one who makes him do it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

He's only be predictable to others if they knew the background information, which they don't.

Many can reverse-engineer many variables without knowing the actual background and therefore your toons would be predictable. Not totally predictable, but that was not the point. They would be predictable enough, so to say. It is all about variables/math, like you said and on what I agreed. So if you now say they can't reverse-engineer variables, then you say there is no math. Thus, you take back your words about predined chars of you which you know everything they would do in advance, or you agree you were wrong in saying they would not be predictable. Which you chose?

moilami wrote...

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).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Certainly my characters can change over time.  The cowardly non-leader character I was referring to earlier grew a spine after the Fade sequence, because the Fade forced him to rely on himself (rather than let the companions do everything) and he learned that he could succeed on his own, which he hadn't believed before.

Then you had to think after/during fade "Hmm, it seems my char will grow now a spine as defined". When you accept you will have to think and evaluate even with perfectly defined characters?

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 07:44 .

[Meltemph]

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.

Ya, the player can construct anything they want about the character no matter how stupid it sounds or is, that doesn't mean I wan the developers to allow that in game.

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.

Anybody could imagine different scenario's, but if the story specifically mentions something that defines them, in regards to their combat in game, then it should not be changed. It makes the story worse if it allows that. And yes, it is a bit malicious, because I do want to harm a players ability from changing the context of a character that is part of a setting. And characters that are more then just "characters you play in DA2", need to be specifically defined so there is cohesion from iterations in games/stories of the setting down the road.

If they never mention the specific combat prowess of a character or mention their dislike for certain styles(Wynn with blood magic) then you would have a case I would argue for. However, if they define combat characteristics in game/story about the characters, then those characteristics need to hold true. The more defined a character is, the more defined they will be in the story and that is a good thing to me, because it will add more personality to them, in the story.

What you are suggesting is reducing their "individuality" for the sake of your inner monologue and that does not make a good story. The more mailable they are, the less detailed you can get in-game, about a character, not a fair trade.

Modifié par Meltemph, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:02 .

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Melness wrote...

Spirit Healer/Blood Mage is a very fun character concept I've played with a lot, though I suppose it hinges on the spirit being unable or unwilling to leave after bonding to the character. But if the spirit could leave, there's no justification ever for a Spirit Healer bonded to a spirit with an ideology opposed to the character.

A Spirit Healer isnt bound to any spirit, he simply call upon energies that spirits may or may not grant. Would a spirit grant energies to a spellcaster who practices demonology?

Similarly, why would a Spirit Healer grant energies to someone that has an opposing ideology? A spirit of healing isn't likely going to agree with wanton slaughter, for example. And blood magic is power gained through the manipulation of blood, while demonology is the summoning and binding of demons. Demonology as we've seen it must be accomplished through blood magic, but blood magic is not demonology, and the Warden can't even access demonology spells.

Keeper Anders is the Warden teaching Anders Keeper magic he's somehow learned because s/he felt having a(nother) mage with those abilities would be beneficial.

I mentioned the Keeper Anders because, like the Spirit Healer, it is an specialization that should be learned through special means instead of being read from a book, rare or not. Making any explanation about Anders or even the Warden learning it a bit more than just a stretch.

If your stance is that the Warden shouldn't even be allowed to learn a specialization, then I can't really argue at all, can I?

Reaver Alistair is again, taught by the Warden who has gained the secrets of those abilities. He may be uneasy using them, but anything to stop the Blight, short of sparing the man who destroyed the Wardens.

Alistair wouldn't pick on the Reaver specialization because it comes from demons the same way Wynne wouldn't pick Blood Magic.

Where are people getting this? The Reaver specialization came from the memories of a dragon, not a demon. I also disagree that demonic origin is the sole reason Wynne is set against blood magic, and more the perception of blood magic as a dangerous and evil path to tread.

I feel so late given it's 6 pages later, but it's only been a day. Responses in bold.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The other is that all of the "passive story-receptive players" are passive. As I mentioned to you earlier, some of them need to be forced or else they wont experience it. And so they want to be forced. BioWare is not catering to passive players. BioWare is catering to players that want/need to be forced. 

And I don't think those people really exist in any large number, as demonstrated by how many people didn't every bother changing the default weapon preferences of the DAO companions.

I think that bit of info actually supports my conclusions more than yours.

[Meltemph]

Demonic spirits teach more than blood magic. Reavers terrorize their enemies, feast upon the souls of their slain opponents to heal their own flesh, and can unleash a blood frenzy that makes them more powerful as they come nearer to their own deaths.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Reaver

That is a pretty specific description about reavers, and I definitely do not see how you could make sense of it, given his dialog through-out the entire game. Sure, you may be able to find a way in your head to excuse it away, but, imo, makes no sense in context of the character of Alister(even hardened).

I agree that blood magic itself is not necessarily evil, but I do find it hard to believe that a benevolent spirit would be attracted to a blood magic user.

Modifié par Meltemph, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:15 .

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...

Lets take an example. Isabella gets whacked on battle and is lying on the ground, her achilles sinons cut, making her unable to run. The assassin who got her is already running away because he saw Warden coming to help. Isabella have a ready to shoot crossbow on her feets, but since she refuses to use bows she just watches as the assassin runs around the corner without ever even trying to make a shot.

I tried to find your post where you compared Isabella to Gimli but I could not find it. So I picked this. Lets pretend this is the right Gimli&axe posting.

You have seen LotR II? The scene where Rohirrims are attacked by Sauron's* Uruks? Gimli stands with Legolas in the fortress and is so short he can't even see the enemies below. He just keeps jumping and cursing. Very funny? At least people laughed a lot in movie theater as Gimli was used as a clown.

My Gimli was not a clown. I don't though say my Gimli would had sat or standed on the edge of the fortress shooting arrows with crossbows because there probably was not crossbows left. It was better give crossbows/bows to peasants and keep them on the fortress shooting arrows. But if there were a single crossbow left after arming everyone My Gimli would had definetly sat on the edge of the fortress shooting arrows before rushing to melee. My Gimli prefers axes and rushes to melee when he can with axes, but he is not a moron who can't use or refuses to use bows when needed. He is also not a fence sitter meaning he would had contributed gladly to the early fight with a bow.

Issy can be whatever. I observe her, evaluate her, draw my conclusions, and chose my actions. Basic stuff. You all do that all the time.



*Saruman's, in before someone having a clue have a chance to correct xD

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:24 .

[Meltemph]

moilami wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lets take an example. Isabella gets whacked on battle and is lying on the ground, her achilles sinons cut, making her unable to run. The assassin who got her is already running away because he saw Warden coming to help. Isabella have a ready to shoot crossbow on her feets, but since she refuses to use bows she just watches as the assassin runs around the corner without ever even trying to make a shot.

I tried to find your post where you compared Isabella to Gimli but I could not find it. So I picked this. Lets pretend this is the right Gimli&axe posting.

You have seen LotR II? The scene where Rohirrims are attacked by Sauron's Uruks? Gimli stands with Legolas in the fortress and is so short he can't even see the enemies below. He just keeps jumping and cursing. Very funny? At least people laughed a lot in movie theater as Gimli was used as a clown.

My Gimli was not a clown. I don't though say my Gimli would had sat or standed on the edge of the fortress shooting arrows with crossbows because there probably was not crossbows left. It was better give crossbows/bows to peasants and keep them on the fortress shooting arrows. But if there were a single crossbow left after arming everyone My Gimli would had definetly sat on the edge of the fortress shooting arrows before rushing to melee. My Gimli prefers axes and rushes to melee when he can with axes, but he is not a moron who can't use or refuses to use bows when needed. He is also not a fence sitter meaning he would had contributed gladly to the early fight with a bow.

Issy can be whatever. I observe her, evaluate her, draw my conclusions, and chose my actions. Basic stuff. You all do that all the time.

You are assuming that there will be situations where it would not make sense for her to use daggers only and also assuming she literally "cant" use a bow.  Maybe she can use bows, but unless she is in a situation where she absolutely has to, she won't.  

[moilami]

Meltemph wrote...

moilami wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lets take an example. Isabella gets whacked on battle and is lying on the ground, her achilles sinons cut, making her unable to run. The assassin who got her is already running away because he saw Warden coming to help. Isabella have a ready to shoot crossbow on her feets, but since she refuses to use bows she just watches as the assassin runs around the corner without ever even trying to make a shot.

I tried to find your post where you compared Isabella to Gimli but I could not find it. So I picked this. Lets pretend this is the right Gimli&axe posting.

You have seen LotR II? The scene where Rohirrims are attacked by Sauron's Uruks? Gimli stands with Legolas in the fortress and is so short he can't even see the enemies below. He just keeps jumping and cursing. Very funny? At least people laughed a lot in movie theater as Gimli was used as a clown.

My Gimli was not a clown. I don't though say my Gimli would had sat or standed on the edge of the fortress shooting arrows with crossbows because there probably was not crossbows left. It was better give crossbows/bows to peasants and keep them on the fortress shooting arrows. But if there were a single crossbow left after arming everyone My Gimli would had definetly sat on the edge of the fortress shooting arrows before rushing to melee. My Gimli prefers axes and rushes to melee when he can with axes, but he is not a moron who can't use or refuses to use bows when needed. He is also not a fence sitter meaning he would had contributed gladly to the early fight with a bow.

Issy can be whatever. I observe her, evaluate her, draw my conclusions, and chose my actions. Basic stuff. You all do that all the time.

You are assuming that there will be situations where it would not make sense for her to use daggers only and also assuming she literally "cant" use a bow.  Maybe she can use bows, but unless she is in a situation where she absolutely has to, she won't.  

I am assuming Issy can't use bows because someone has stated she can't use bows.


Edit: (It is you who is now assuming out of hat stuff. No pun intended.)

+ I am very sure I don't need whole Issy for anything unless she is quest critical somewhere. I am curious to see how long it takes before someone have soloed DA2 in hardest difficulty. Actually a competition would be cool for that, but it is hard to do since it is too easy to cheat.

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:34 .

[Meltemph]

I am assuming Issy can't use bows because someone has stated she can't use bows.

Huh? So, you assume she can't use bow's because someone said she can't? I don't think the devs said that she literally can not use bows... only that she is "not a bow girl". I took that as meaning she would only use a bow if she didn't have a choice.

Modifié par Meltemph, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:33 .

[moilami]

Meltemph wrote...

I am assuming Issy can't use bows because someone has stated she can't use bows.

Huh? So, you assume she can't use bow's because someone said she can't? I don't think the devs said that she literally can not use bows... only that she is "not a bow girl". I took that as meaning she would only use a bow if she didn't have a choice.

Yeah, assuming. Assuming for argument's sake. We will see how it is when DA2 is released.

And I really don't care what she can use and I have said it many times. It is all the same for me if they delete whole Isabella away or make her wear a barrel. Wont change my life a bit.


Edit: (You should be less emo if I point it is you and not me who have something in the eye disturbing vision.)

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:51 .

[moilami]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL



A Youtube video where somone soloes DA2 with a name "Is this how BioWare intended DA2 to be played" would be freaking cool xD

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

Huh? So, you assume she can't use bow's because someone said she can't? I don't think the devs said that she literally can not use bows... only that she is "not a bow girl". I took that as meaning she would only use a bow if she didn't have a choice.

Characters in DA2 can only equip weapons for which they have proficiency (skill tree)
Companions in DA2 only get single weapon skill tree, the other is replaced with their unique skill tree.
Isabela's weapon skill tree is dual "daggers".
As such, she cannot equip the bow.

[the_one_54321]

Just out my own neurotic outlook with regard to the works of Tolkien:

There is no "LotR II."

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Just out my own neurotic outlook with regard to the works of Tolkien:
There is no "LotR II."

Ah, pedantic. I like pedantics. I like mathematics too.

You are right, there is no LotR II. There is LotR: The Two Towers I was referring to.

[the_one_54321]

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Just out my own neurotic outlook with regard to the works of Tolkien:
There is no "LotR II."

Ah, pedantic. I like pedantics. I like mathematics too.

You are right, there is no LotR II. There is LotR: The Two Towers I was referring to.

When it comes to Tolkien, I just can't help it.

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Just out my own neurotic outlook with regard to the works of Tolkien:
There is no "LotR II."

Ah, pedantic. I like pedantics. I like mathematics too.

You are right, there is no LotR II. There is LotR: The Two Towers I was referring to.

When it comes to Tolkien, I just can't help it.

Appears you appreciate his work. I can say I do, greatly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The other is that all of the "passive story-receptive players" are passive. As I mentioned to you earlier, some of them need to be forced or else they wont experience it. And so they want to be forced. BioWare is not catering to passive players. BioWare is catering to players that want/need to be forced. 

And I don't think those people really exist in any large number, as demonstrated by how many people didn't every bother changing the default weapon preferences of the DAO companions.

I think that bit of info actually supports my conclusions more than yours.

It demonstrates that they didn't need to be forced in order to follow the default path.

Now, if they want to be forced, that's a different question.  I have no data for that.

[moilami]

Dubya75 wrote...

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:



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

Mmm.. but I bet there is somewhere here in this forum someone who argues it is "immersion breaker" ------ HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, it can indeed be "immersion breaker" ... I have to admit.

Big boobs in fantasy RPG can be immersion breaker = true.

(But only in one certain very specific way.)

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 11:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...


Many can reverse-engineer many variables without knowing the actual background and therefore your toons would be predictable. Not totally predictable, but that was not the point.

I would argue it is.  That's what predictability requires for a single entity.

But even without that high standard, any character inclined to reverse-engineer the variables would require an enormous dataset, plus he would need to know that there were consistently applied underlying principles.

Since this isn't true of most people, why would any character assume it true on my character?  And what character would have access to a sufficiently large dataset of my character's behaviour?

They would be predictable enough, so to say. It is all about variables/math, like you said and on what I agreed. So if you now say they can't reverse-engineer variables, then you say there is no math. Thus, you take back your words about predined chars of you which you know everything they would do in advance, or you agree you were wrong in saying they would not be predictable. Which you chose?

As I said above, a detailed set of underlying principles, consistently applied, does not produce a useful level of predictability to anyone without detailed knowledge of those underlying principles, which is not available to the other characters.

How many events do you think someone would need to witness to infer those variables?

Then you had to think after/during fade "Hmm, it seems my char will grow now a spine as defined". When you accept you will have to think and evaluate even with perfectly defined characters?

Perfectly defines doesn't require that the characters are ideally rational.  This particular character held an opjnion about himself which was false.  Only in the Fade, when he was forced to work alone, did he witness evidence that his opinion was false.

Upon receiving this new data, the character would then either have to revise his opinion, or inore the evidence.  Which he does is determined by the pre-exsting set of principles.

It's all simple arithmetic.

[MDarwin]

Just a thought. If Kirkwall needs to raise an Army, they will need a lot of Rogues to do so. As Warriors can not "handle any type of bows" and even slings?

They would need also Rogues in close combat or not?

Modifié par MDarwin, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:45 .

[moilami]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]moilami wrote...


Many can reverse-engineer many variables without knowing the actual background and therefore your toons would be predictable. Not totally predictable, but that was not the point.[/quote]

I would argue it is.  That's what predictability requires for a single entity.[/quote]

No, predictable and totally predictable are two different things. The former means it is quite possible to predict something and the latter means it is always possible to predict. There is third arch-pred too. Unpredictable, which is exact opposite of totally predictable.

[quote]
Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But even without that high standard, any character inclined to reverse-engineer the variables would require an enormous dataset, plus he would need to know that there were consistently applied underlying principles.[/quote]

No, computers need those enormous databases. That is why we don't have anywhere close to human like artificial intelligence, and that is why we wont have anytime soon it either in cRPGs. Some argue we wont ever have human like AI. And some disagree. As usual.

I spoke about predictable enough, how some can be predictable enough. Examples of it include soccer players, and especially some kind of midfielder-forward combo. If they know each other very well, they can play much more effectively together than some of equal skill but who does not know each other. On the other hand, those two players who does not know each other but who are very experienced players can still predict what the other one is going to do. Basicly any midfielder can predict a forward is going to position himself in a way that midfielder can make a good pass for him. The midfielder can also predict what the players in the opposite team are going to, as can the forward. And someone observing the game could predict outcomes in the game. Up to the point he would not even have to watch the game and he could still predict who will win. He would had not even ever seen any of the players.

This is about brilliance of the human mind. If you try to program AI to "understand" what paper is and what you can do with paper, it would be enormous work to do and the more you would program about paper the more you would have to program of everything. For example you can draw to paper with a pen. But can you roll a pen around the paper? Or can you easily shield with paper a pen at which is thrown a stone. Computer would not know unless you tell it. For human that kind of question would be totally trivial, even if the human would had never ever thought about it before or heard of it.

Humans are master geniuses in certain things. That is one reason why humans don't need enormous databases in order to predict how someone behaves. To make the task even more easier there are rules to help humans to predict how someone behaves like there are traffic rules. And yet more. I can predict how to get banned here even though I haven't read forum rules ever. Not a word (who has?). If I would do something leading to a ban, someone could justifiably say to me "what did you expect (predict)".

[quote]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Since this isn't true of most people, why would any character assume it true on my character?  And what character would have access to a sufficiently large dataset of my character's behaviour?[/quote]

No, people are geniuses to predict things. Especially behaviour of other people. And especially if they can observe you and you share same nationality.

[quote]
moilami wrote...
[quote]They would be predictable enough, so to say. It is all about variables/math, like you said and on what I agreed. So if you now say they can't reverse-engineer variables, then you say there is no math. Thus, you take back your words about predined chars of you which you know everything they would do in advance, or you agree you were wrong in saying they would not be predictable. Which you chose?[/quote][/quote]

[quote]
Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I said above, a detailed set of underlying principles, consistently applied, does not produce a useful level of predictability to anyone without detailed knowledge of those underlying principles, which is not available to the other characters.
[/quote]

No. I can predict that if I would go for a walk now and ask from the first woman I see "could I please squeeze your boob", the answer would be "negative". I don't even need database info where and when exactly I would meet her and who she is.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How many events do you think someone would need to witness to infer those variables?[/quote]

I don't understand what you mean but guess what? You contradicted yourself. If you say an enormous database would be needed to be somewhat predictable (not totally predictable nor unpredictable, just enough to be "predictable enough for RP"), you would not be able to define your characters in a way you would know always anything they do. And it is true. The only person you really can RP is you, and even then you would have to try to predict what you would do because even you can't totally predict what you would do in real. Does it matter? It doesn't matter at all because you can play predictably enough yourself or some chars you have made.

[quote]moilami wrote...
[quote]Then you had to think after/during fade "Hmm, it seems my char will grow now a spine as defined". When you accept you will have to think and evaluate even with perfectly defined characters?[/quote][/quote]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Perfectly defines doesn't require that the characters are ideally rational.  This particular character held an opjnion about himself which was false.  Only in the Fade, when he was forced to work alone, did he witness evidence that his opinion was false.

Upon receiving this new data, the character would then either have to revise his opinion, or inore the evidence.  Which he does is determined by the pre-exsting set of principles.[/quote]

I liked your RP. But anyway, I wont argue with you anymore. I am more interested of boobs, sorry.

[Il Divo]

Oy, Just to remark, Sylvius, Moilami, I haven't forgotten about this topic, but I don't have much time for dedicated responses at the moment so I'll probably get to it in the morning if it's alright with you.

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...

Oy, Just to remark, Sylvius, Moilami, I haven't forgotten about this topic, but I don't have much time for dedicated responses at the moment so I'll probably get to it in the morning if it's alright with you.

Haha, appreciated, but sorry to you too, boobs really interest me more. So I am out.