140 réponses à ce sujet

[johnbgardner]

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

JTwizzy88 wrote...
That's ridiculous, the word supernatural refers to an order of existence beyond the scientific universe.  Since magic exists in Thedas and MAGIC by its very definition is clearly supernatural then it would imply that other supernatural creations and entities (such as gods) quite likely exist. 

FYI the meaning of supernatural is not subjective unless the laws of science in any given universe are somehow changed to account for things such as demons and magic.  As far as we know, Thedas has the same scientific laws as our universe.

Magic exists in Thedas, but it's part of the natural world around them. Therefore, obviously not SUPERnatural. You're talking about the definition of magic and the supernatural from an inherently non-supernatural viewpoint. I think that anyone in Thedas would disagree with you.

Unless you subscribe to the belief that magic is inherently chaotic and therefore unable to subject to the scientific method, magic can be entirely scientific in nature. Speaking for a in-universe context, of course. Natural law in Thedas is obviously very different from here. Magic is an integrated part of the universe. You even go to the fade in dreams.

Taleroth wrote...
The existence of magic itself implies the scientific laws are different.   As our scientific laws do not allow for it.

For it to exist within a world, the laws must be different.  It's only supernatural within the context of a world where it can't possibly exist.  The fridge logic here is that supernatural is self-defining as impossible to exist.  Which also provides that where it does exist, it's not supernatural.

Excellently put.

I agree.  The very core of science is repeatability of experiments.  If conditions A are met, and action B is taken, then results C will occur.  In the context of magic, if a spellcaster has enough mana (condition A) and  perfoms a set of actions (action then the result is a change in the world environment (result C).   Any and all spellcasters can repeat the process and get the same results.  Therefore magic conforms to scientific precepts, and is therefore NOT supernatural in the fantasy world.  The fact that no one can explain the process has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific or supernatural.  For many years, no one could explain why electrons were diverted by a magnetic field which did not make the effect supernatural, just unexplained.

Modifié par johnbgardner, 31 octobre 2009 - 01:59 .

[Kemor]

For anyone who considers roleplaying a priority, I think this offers a potential level of depth rarely seen in a crpg. There should be ample opportunity for characters of all viewpoints, faiths and beliefs (or lack thereof) to express themselves however they wish.

In all appearances, it does. However, in reality, it does not and actually restricts more because these possibilities are actually more extensive.

In a very narrow and heavily structured universe, where say you only have 5 possible ways to exist, you can roleplay each of these fully because within this universe, they are very defined. Your roleplay within the game is limited by the very concept of the universe and, if the universe is logical within itself, you can roleplay, fully, each of these 5 ways. Remember that roleplaying is not playing what you want, but playing a role within a context. You wouldn't want to roleplay Captain Hook in the Middle Earth right?



Now, in a very wide and unstructured universe, where you have an infinite possible ways to be (as in ours), no game can allow you to roleplay in it because it would have to be able to adapt directly to whatever your action are and that's not the games work today: they are scripted.



Therefore less is more and more is actually less. The more you pretend to offer, the less you can deliver and therefore only end up with frustration. Knowing the exact balance of what you can offer and the quality of it is key in games (and many other things).

[Kemor]

johnbgardner wrote...
I agree.  The very core of science is repeatability of experiments.  If conditions A are met, and action B is taken, then results C will occur.  In the context of magic, if a spellcaster has enough mana (condition A) and  perfoms a set of actions (action then the result is a change in the world environment (result C).   Any and all spellcasters can repeat the process and get the same results.  Therefore magic conforms to scientific precepts, and is therefore NOT supernatural in the fantasy world.  The fact that no one can explain the process has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific or supernatural.  For many years, no one could explain why electrons were diverted by a magnetic field which did not make the effect supernatural, just unexplained.

I too totally agree that Magic in DA is conforms to scientific precepts and is NOT supernatural in DA and actually pushing it to the point that VERY few things ARE supernatural in DA.

Now, extrapolate that thought and apply the results to the world of Dragon Age and think: How would/could such a world evolve? Would it in any way or shape resemble our medieval time? If the potential of magic is included  in the realm of sciences, how could men ever evolve and follow the same overall civilisasional trend as we did?

Personally, as said in more words in my previous post, I just can't see it happening UNLESS there is actually a Maker that rules every single particle of this world's evolution and that has to be obvious to anyone in the actual world.
What mage could think "I can make a fireball but not a a fire whip or a fire man" and not be completely puzzled by it. What mage would not immediately think: "Why do I even make a fireball?" unless he was forced to and since a fireballs or flaming weapons are obviously designs with no direct logic within nature, these limitations are artificials.
And if there are no such limits in the DA world but only for the game, then the whole setting falls in pieces...

Modifié par Kemor, 31 octobre 2009 - 02:26 .

[Orogun01]

Kemor wrote...

For anyone who considers roleplaying a priority, I think this offers a potential level of depth rarely seen in a crpg. There should be ample opportunity for characters of all viewpoints, faiths and beliefs (or lack thereof) to express themselves however they wish.

In all appearances, it does. However, in reality, it does not and actually restricts more because these possibilities are actually more extensive.
In a very narrow and heavily structured universe, where say you only have 5 possible ways to exist, you can roleplay each of these fully because within this universe, they are very defined. Your roleplay within the game is limited by the very concept of the universe and, if the universe is logical within itself, you can roleplay, fully, each of these 5 ways. Remember that roleplaying is not playing what you want, but playing a role within a context. You wouldn't want to roleplay Captain Hook in the Middle Earth right?

Now, in a very wide and unstructured universe, where you have an infinite possible ways to be (as in ours), no game can allow you to roleplay in it because it would have to be able to adapt directly to whatever your action are and that's not the games work today: they are scripted.

Therefore less is more and more is actually less. The more you pretend to offer, the less you can deliver and therefore only end up with frustration. Knowing the exact balance of what you can offer and the quality of it is key in games (and many other things).

Yet the role you play can reveal your character. Despite no game being sufficient to truly allow for a complete freedom of action, the way one responds and reacts; both emotionally and in game physically, are reflective of the attitudes of said individual. I disagree with your notion of less is more, mainly because it fails to cover the extensive work that goes on creating the option for your character to roleplay. The matter deals more closely with the storytelling and how flexible it is, open world games like Oblivion offer little story and allow a great deal of freedom. But when you are playing on a game with a set story, it will follow the pattern that is set. The trick is creating flexible moments where the story or the results of a quest rest on a decision made by the PC, but still regarding the greater story and maintaining it's course. To put it shortly, there is a need to create the illusion of freedom on RPG, while still guiding the gamer without him noticing it.

[daem3an]

Kemor wrote...

For anyone who considers roleplaying a priority, I think this offers a potential level of depth rarely seen in a crpg. There should be ample opportunity for characters of all viewpoints, faiths and beliefs (or lack thereof) to express themselves however they wish.

In all appearances, it does. However, in reality, it does not and actually restricts more because these possibilities are actually more extensive.
In a very narrow and heavily structured universe, where say you only have 5 possible ways to exist, you can roleplay each of these fully because within this universe, they are very defined. Your roleplay within the game is limited by the very concept of the universe and, if the universe is logical within itself, you can roleplay, fully, each of these 5 ways. Remember that roleplaying is not playing what you want, but playing a role within a context. You wouldn't want to roleplay Captain Hook in the Middle Earth right?

Now, in a very wide and unstructured universe, where you have an infinite possible ways to be (as in ours), no game can allow you to roleplay in it because it would have to be able to adapt directly to whatever your action are and that's not the games work today: they are scripted.

Therefore less is more and more is actually less. The more you pretend to offer, the less you can deliver and therefore only end up with frustration. Knowing the exact balance of what you can offer and the quality of it is key in games (and many other things).

I don't disagree with this in principle, a compelling story requires enough background and structure to guide the character along paths that makes sense within the context of the game world, while also allowing a fair amount of freedom of choice, allowing the player to roleplay in the style that appeals to them the most. This is where many sandbox games fall short, giving the player a beautiful world to play in, but not offering enough context to encourage a good story experience while doing so.
(edit: pretty much what Orogun01 said above)

From what I've read, Dragon Age has achieved this balance to an extent rarely (if ever) seen before in an rpg.

Faith-based religion exists in the game world as it does in our own, and your character can respond to this as they see fit, as each of us does in our own lives. I'm not sure I get why that would make it any more restrictive than (for example) playing a game where you have to pick one of several deities as your own. The extreme example of Captain Hook is just that, extreme, but I'm not saying this game allows you to play any character from any universe. If that were the case, I'd play as the Kool-Aid man.

If I were thinking about interesting ways I could roleplay certain characters (from what I understand of the game) an elven commoner might begin very suspicious and distrustful of the Chantry and yet eventually convert, a noble Templar could be a devout believer but then decide to renounce the faith, a Dalish elf would probably (but doesn't necessarily have to) accept the beliefs of their ancestors, and a Dwarven commoner might be completely indifferent to religion.
Someone else could choose to play each of these characters completely differently, and I think it could all be done without breaking the rules of the game world.

Modifié par daem3an, 31 octobre 2009 - 03:01 .

[Nyysjan]

johnbgardner wrote...
I agree.  The very core of science is repeatability of experiments.  If conditions A are met, and action B is taken, then results C will occur.  In the context of magic, if a spellcaster has enough mana (condition A) and  perfoms a set of actions (action then the result is a change in the world environment (result C).   Any and all spellcasters can repeat the process and get the same results.  Therefore magic conforms to scientific precepts, and is therefore NOT supernatural in the fantasy world.  The fact that no one can explain the process has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific or supernatural.  For many years, no one could explain why electrons were diverted by a magnetic field which did not make the effect supernatural, just unexplained.

First, not all the mages need to be able to produce a similar
effect through similar actions, it is enough if a small subset of them,
or even one (repeatedly, in excactly same circumstances) can, that is
enough, now you just need to start figure out why person or group A
can, but not those in group B (magical inborn gift being required to
casting magic makes it no less scientific, anymore than requiring legs
to be able to walk makes walking supernatural, it's just that people
born with legs are the norm, but those with the magical gift are the
exception).

Kemor wrote...
I too totally agree that Magic in DA is conforms to scientific precepts and is NOT supernatural in DA and actually pushing it to the point that VERY few things ARE supernatural in DA.

Now, extrapolate that thought and apply the results to the world of Dragon Age and think: How would/could such a world evolve? Would it in any way or shape resemble our medieval time? If the potential of magic is included  in the realm of sciences, how could men ever evolve and follow the same overall civilisasional trend as we did?

Personally, as said in more words in my previous post, I just can't see it happening UNLESS there is actually a Maker that rules every single particle of this world's evolution and that has to be obvious to anyone in the actual world.
What mage could think "I can make a fireball but not a a fire whip or a fire man" and not be completely puzzled by it. What mage would not immediately think: "Why do I even make a fireball?" unless he was forced to and since a fireballs or flaming weapons are obviously designs with no direct logic within nature, these limitations are artificials.
And if there are no such limits in the DA world but only for the game, then the whole setting falls in pieces...

If the magical gift is rare enough, most people will not be able to make use of it, so those not magically gifted, yet smart/curious/inventive, will keep asking questions about the nature of the world arund them, and especially if there is a way to get their work done with less effort, so many early "scientific" advances would happen in almost identical fashion.

Also, just because there are no limits we can see, does not mean they do not exist, maybe fireball is the most cost effective way to cause large scale destruction, maybe firesword is relatively easy to do but firewhips is hard enough to be almost impossible, maybe fireman would just stand there and burn out, who knows, the limits of the universe are built in, and while plenty of mages probably wonder about these things, they might not be able to properly explain them, or if they can, they just don't feel like burdening the player about them.

[Kemor]

Captain Hook is of course extreme but sometimes it's helpful to try and make a point



Sandbox games usually completely fails at any character role-play very fast because the more you play, the more the branches of your own character divert from the original setting and unless you come back to very simple stuff, the game simply cannot cope. In a sandbox game, all yours choices are very raw and primitive ones. In Oblivion or Fallout, nothing of what you do outside scripted events (quests) has any impact on the world and no games ever offered what humans are sometimes so good at: irrational and illogical choices. The are only two games where you can fully role-play: your imagination, and real life.

To me, it's much better to have very structured story based game WITH as many interesting and twisted scripted choices as possible, than a totally unstructured game, where you can do whatever but nothing matters. To put it in different terms: I can act better when the director actually knows and care about what the hell I'm doing.



To daem3an, all the "ways" for role play you described are very basic and quite superficial. Accepting or rejecting something, that's just 2 choices, very black and white. Story wise, it's a bit of a bore.

Imagine a noble young man, third in the line, who does not believe in the Chantry but still wants to be a Templar because of the power and authority it brings, offers more subtle interactions and story than simple: I believe, I don't believe.

Likewise, a Dalish elf that, through epic adventure, discovers that the Maker and all humans believes are actually true, decides that this information simply cannot be revealed to his people as it would destroy their entire culture. He KNOWS that all the believes of his friends, family and children are lies but perpetuate the lie every single day, for their sake or so he believes.



"I believe, I don't believe" choices are simple, raw, yes, no and easy to script. When raised, the answer to the question is always 0 or 1. The two stories above are however VERY hard to script because they will affect every single choice after them. Who knows, who doesn't, why, when, how. The amount of variables that would have to be kept track of in the game would become insane very fast.

[daem3an]

Kemor wrote...
To daem3an, all the "ways" for role play you described are very basic and quite superficial. Accepting or rejecting something, that's just 2 choices, very black and white. Story wise, it's a bit of a bore.

*snip*

"I believe, I don't believe" choices are simple, raw, yes, no and easy to script. When raised, the answer to the question is always 0 or 1. The two stories above are however VERY hard to script because they will affect every single choice after them. Who knows, who doesn't, why, when, how. The amount of variables that would have to be kept track of in the game would become insane very fast.

Sorry to bore you

Your examples are more complex, but my point was the system used in Dragon Age is much less restrictive than a system that imposes a religious belief on your character. That doesn't mean (and I'm not implying) it's limitless in opportunities for roleplay.

[Kemor]

If the magical gift is rare enough, most people will not be able to make use of it, so those not magically gifted, yet smart/curious/inventive, will keep asking questions about the nature of the world arund them, and especially if there is a way to get their work done with less effort, so many early "scientific" advances would happen in almost identical fashion.

True, but these advances would be also structured WITH the knowledge of magic as an existing fact and it's effects entwined with them. There is much less need to discover fire when someone can make it appear out of thin air. Early tribes with such a person would easily take dominance over tribes without due to the advantages it brings and then they automatically nurture such individuals above anything else: your first religion.

Also, just because there are no limits we can see, does not mean they do not exist, maybe fireball is the most cost effective way to cause large scale destruction, maybe firesword is relatively easy to do but firewhips is hard enough to be almost impossible, maybe fireman would just stand there and burn out, who knows, the limits of the universe are built in, and while plenty of mages probably wonder about these things, they might not be able to properly explain them, or if they can, they just don't feel like burdening the player about them.

A fireball is obviously NOT cost effective since a LOT of the actual fire doesn't impact anything at all AND you can move from it or avoid it. The actual explosion force of a fireball (if it explodes at all) might probably be more devastating but then, you would do it with ice too, or rocks (works better on plate armor I bet). If you can make the iron of a weapon burn with a thought, why not someone's skull or helmet. A universe does not magically become logical because of completely illogical physical laws. That's like saying that some world  you make up has a different kind of gravity where only triangle objects are subject to it: saying so does not make it so, even in a world of your own design unless you are going for Terry Pratchet style. Now, if you introduce a powerful entity (creator) that MADE it so, it DOES become logical in your own setting but you therefore have to take it into account for every other thing you design within it.

[Foxd1e]

Wow over the last 6 pages this topic has reallly taken off in a hundred different directions... But the question that no one can seem to agree on is, Does the Maker exist in Dragon Age?



According to the Lore on the Dragon Age Wiki sometime before the first blight a mischievous god tricked all the gods of good and evil into being confined in eternal prisons just to watch the chaos unfold. If this is true then the only god still reachable is this one, I can't find the article at the moment but the god reminded me of Loki.



Now maybe the Maker never existed maybe it was this "Loki-like" character all along and the Golden City was just bait, Kind of like the Apple tree in the Garden of Eden. You knew Adam and Eve would eventually give in to the Snakes coercion. Maybe the Golden City was created by the Demons to engineer the Darkspawn, they just needed living, greedy, stupid human hosts. That's a big theory I'm throwing out there but hey maybe it's more likely than we know.

[Kemor]

daem3an wrote...
Sorry to bore you

Your examples are more complex, but my point was the system used in Dragon Age is much less restrictive than a system that imposes a religious belief on your character. That doesn't mean (and I'm not implying) it's limitless in opportunities for roleplay.

Hehe sorry, nothing personal was just making a point again

And yes, it is less restrictive and in a way I believe Bioware's (kudos to writers there) always been very good at drawing the fine lines in their stories and the choices available, which is why I really like their games a lot. I'm just afraid from what I read and discussed, that I won't find their world credible when I play it and therefore completely distance myself from anything that's in it. Happens to me sometimes in poorly written RPGs, like in Risen or Drakensang for example where their worlds and stories didn't make any sense whatsoever, nor did the choices you have as a character.

[daem3an]

Foxd1e wrote...

Wow over the last 6 pages this topic has reallly taken off in a hundred different directions... But the question that no one can seem to agree on is, Does the Maker exist in Dragon Age?

The Maker exists in Dragon Age... or he doesn't, depending on who you ask in the game. It's already been stated that belief in the Maker is based on faith.

Mary Kirby:

If, on the eve of battle, a general goes out to give a speech before his troops, and in front of all his assembled armies, is struck by lightning and killed, is that a miracle?

If a priest prays for a king who is injured and seems on the brink of death, and he recovers, is that a miracle?

If a nation declares war, and the next day their capital is laid waste by a hurricane, is that a miracle?

The faithful see these things and say, "This is the hand of the Maker at work!" Certain that this is proof that the Maker is real and active in the world. The skeptics see the same events and say, "They're only coincidences." The game doesn't confirm one way or the other.

[daem3an]

Kemor wrote...

daem3an wrote...
Sorry to bore you

Your examples are more complex, but my point was the system used in Dragon Age is much less restrictive than a system that imposes a religious belief on your character. That doesn't mean (and I'm not implying) it's limitless in opportunities for roleplay.

Hehe sorry, nothing personal was just making a point again

And yes, it is less restrictive and in a way I believe Bioware's (kudos to writers there) always been very good at drawing the fine lines in their stories and the choices available, which is why I really like their games a lot. I'm just afraid from what I read and discussed, that I won't find their world credible when I play it and therefore completely distance myself from anything that's in it. Happens to me sometimes in poorly written RPGs, like in Risen or Drakensang for example where their worlds and stories didn't make any sense whatsoever, nor did the choices you have as a character.

No worries, but based on the interviews I've read I don't share your doubts. I guess it depends how far you want to take your roelplay, but I think this will be a far cry from Risen or Drakensang, and probably vastly superior to most rpgs in that respect.

[Kemor]

Foxd1e wrote...

Wow over the last 6 pages this topic has reallly taken off in a hundred different directions... But the question that no one can seem to agree on is, Does the Maker exist in Dragon Age?

Sadly, Bioware stands on this is quite adamant: they won't say...

According to the Lore on the Dragon Age Wiki sometime before the first blight a mischievous god tricked all the gods of good and evil into being confined in eternal prisons just to watch the chaos unfold. If this is true then the only god still reachable is this one, I can't find the article at the moment but the god reminded me of Loki.

Actually, it "gods", not god. These were the old gods, dragon-like creatures who were among the first created by the Maker after the failed experiment that was the Void. They were resentful and lured some magisters to enter the Void physically, directly into the Golden city. This act caused a corruption of the city (no the Black city, which can always be seen but not reached in the Void), the first Blight (the magisters and more as the disease spread) and the emprisonment of the Old Gods in the depth of the earth by the Maker.

Now maybe the Maker never existed maybe it was this "Loki-like" character all along and the Golden City was just bait, Kind of like the Apple tree in the Garden of Eden. You knew Adam and Eve would eventually give in to the Snakes coercion. Maybe the Golden City was created by the Demons to engineer the Darkspawn, they just needed living, greedy, stupid human hosts. That's a big theory I'm throwing out there but hey maybe it's more likely than we know.

Remember that all this "knowledge" that we have are only from stuff believed by the Chantry. None are historical facts.

Some things we know for sure:
- There IS a black city something in the Void (since every single mage entering the Void can see it) though nobody knows for sure if there EVER was a Golden city, nor what is the Black City. Might play a big role in DA:O or future chapters.
- There are "Old gods", in the meaning that there are powerful sentient dragons sleeping in deep caves and we also know that these powerful entities can be corrupted by the disease known as the blight (becoming Arch Demons, and thus taking control of Darkspawns, causing Blights). I don't think anyone made contact with a live "old god" without it being an Arch-demon so we don't know if they are destructive by nature or not. Remember that "gods" are just selfish beings flying in little red capes and by that I mean that they are simply powerful entities that through process of fear and ignorance we refer to as gods.

[Kemor]

daem3an wrote...

[..]but I think this will be a far cry from Risen or Drakensang, and probably vastly superior to most rpgs in that respect.

Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. It's Bioware we're talking about

[Nyysjan]

Kemor wrote...

A fireball is obviously NOT cost effective since a LOT of the actual fire doesn't impact anything at all AND you can move from it or avoid it.

What do you mean obviously? Do you know the physical/metaphysical laws directing magic/fire on DA? maybe the fire itself is almost free, but the precision is that hard/expensive part, so just dropping lot of it is cheaper to the mage than casting lot of small, pinpoint accurate spells, and you might be able to dodge it, if you are fast enough (and by that idea, you could also dodge the more concentrated spells, with fireballs, if you are at the center, you need to move further away to avoid it.

Kemor wrote...
The actual explosion force of a fireball (if it explodes at all) might probably be more devastating but then, you would do it with ice too, or rocks (works better on plate armor I bet).

Really? can you make ice explode? or rock? do fireballs even explode or do they just spread fire on a large area?
and why would armor work less well against physical impacts (something they are made to stop/redirect, than pure heat (fire hurts because it is hot, not because it has pretty lights, just heating the air has the same effect and metal conducts heat quite bit better than air).

Kemor wrote...
If you can make the iron of a weapon burn with a thought, why not someone's skull or helmet. A universe does not magically become logical because of completely illogical physical laws.

Maybe, or maybe not, does the helmet stay put while you cast your spell, will the person being cast the spell at choose not to resist, maybe living beings automaticly resist hostile magic cast on them, maybe even all magic and they must consciously stop resisting to get positive effects more easily through.
And maybe, even if you can just pinpoint your firespell at someones head/helmet, it's still easier, and cheaper, and just as effective, to drop a fireball on him.

Kemor wrote...
That's like saying that some world  you make up has a different kind of gravity where only triangle objects are subject to it: saying so does not make it so, even in a world of your own design unless you are going for Terry Pratchet style.

Why must gravity effect objects of different shapes the same way? Because it does in our universe?
Maybe triangular objects are lighter in DA, maybe round objects get heavier the more perfectly spherical they become, who knows, as long as the rules are internally consistent, there needs to be no actual explanation to what they actually are, or why they are so.

Kemor wrote...
Now, if you introduce a powerful entity (creator) that MADE it so, it DOES become logical in your own setting but you therefore have to take it into account for every other thing you design within it.

No, that's just you insisting on the world to conform to your preconcieved ideas of how the world works, it requires no creator, no god, or any other sentient being to act as a designer anymore than our world does, rules are, and the world is shaped by them, wether there is a rule maker or not is irrelevant, as long as the rules are internally consistend, they can be believed in (within the story).

EDIT---

Kemor wrote...

True, but these advances would be also
structured WITH the knowledge of magic as an existing fact and it's
effects entwined with them. There is much less need to discover fire
when someone can make it appear out of thin air. Early tribes with such
a person would easily take dominance over tribes without due to the
advantages it brings and then they automatically nurture such
individuals above anything else: your first religion.

And that's where you get the religions and other myths
But just because one tribe has magic users and others don't, doesn't mean things will stay that way, other tribes will get their own mages, or someone will figure out a way to make fire without magic, or plague will kill all the mages in the ruling tribe (so "proving" that the tribe had angered the gods or something), causing an uprising.

Modifié par Nyysjan, 01 novembre 2009 - 01:23 .