833 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

adlocutio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cRPGs are more than narrative choices, but narrative choices remain the most important part of cRPGs.

That's arguable. Skyrim in particular is a game in which narrative choices may not mean as much as other aspects... Much of the actual roleplaying is done in the gameplay itself. 

Please elaborate.

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But because those events are also governed by dice, you can't pre-write the narrative.

You assume the rules (or dice-rolls) can't be bent to fit the narrative, when in fact the first rule of the 2nd Ed DM's guide says to do exactly that. Please understand I'm not arguing a purely simulationist approach is best for a cRPG, or the tabletop for that matter.  Just that DA and 4E went too far in the other direction and in doing so sacrificed some of the ability to roleplay.

[adlocutio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

adlocutio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cRPGs are more than narrative choices, but narrative choices remain the most important part of cRPGs.

That's arguable. Skyrim in particular is a game in which narrative choices may not mean as much as other aspects... Much of the actual roleplaying is done in the gameplay itself. 

Please elaborate.

Well, most of Skyrim gameplay is spent interacting with the game world rather than in dialogue or driving the narrative.  Many would argue the narrative is tangential, and that the point of the game is instead  to interact with the game world, to travel and explore. If that's the case, then how one chooses to explore, and what one chooses to do while exploring, whether one chooses to quest at all, and if so, for what motivation - these things are far more important than the (few) narrative choices  in the game.  

 Many of the narratives in the game really only offer one choice, if any: do the quest or don't.  It's a very different kind of narrative from Bioware's but it's just as valid for roleplaying. Perhaps moreso.  It's left to the player do decide the PC's motivations, rather than the narrative. 

I would argue the quests are largely there to give you a reason to go from A to B, to meet new people, and explore the world more. Now you might say that any interaction with the game world can form a narrative, and how you do it equates to narrative choice, and you'd be right to an extent.  However, I don't think that's what you meant.

[Genshie]

Filament wrote...

jackofalltrades456 wrote...

The one thing that makes me sad about a voice protagonist is that we'll probably only have humans playable again. If they were to make the Origins races playable that would mean they would need at least six voice actors to voice all of them.

Again, not necessarily true, for instance Gorim and Spike Spiegel (Cowboy Bebop) are voiced by the same VA (Steve Blum) with very little inflection added to Blum's voice (Irving and Oghren are also Steve Blum, with added age/gruffness).

Voices are a non-issue period for Bioware. I give example A. being Star Wars Old Republic which had not just different races but different personality voices as well for your created character.

[Merci357]

My problem with the voiced protagonist in BW games is that it's neither an empty vessel to be filled by me, like the Courier or the Dragonborn, nor it's a predefined character like Adam Jensen, Michael Thorton or Geralt of Riva.

However, DA2 was a step in the later direction. ME3 had it overdone with it's auto dialogue, but I loved in DA2 that Hawke wasn't detached from the party, she actively engaged in party banter, something I don't want to see go away entirely. Maybe prompt the player to engage in banter is possible via a QTE event, I've no idea. But since a voiced protagonist is already set in stone regarding DA3, you might want to use it's strong points, not combat it's weaknesses.

[Meris]

adlocutio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

adlocutio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

cRPGs are more than narrative choices, but narrative choices remain the most important part of cRPGs.

That's arguable. Skyrim in particular is a game in which narrative choices may not mean as much as other aspects... Much of the actual roleplaying is done in the gameplay itself. 

Please elaborate.

Well, most of Skyrim gameplay is spent interacting with the game world rather than in dialogue or driving the narrative.  Many would argue the narrative is tangential, and that the point of the game is instead  to interact with the game world, to travel and explore. If that's the case, then how one chooses to explore, and what one chooses to do while exploring, whether one chooses to quest at all, and if so, for what motivation - these things are far more important than the (few) narrative choices  in the game.  

 Many of the narratives in the game really only offer one choice, if any: do the quest or don't.  It's a very different kind of narrative from Bioware's but it's just as valid for roleplaying. Perhaps moreso.  It's left to the player do decide the PC's motivations, rather than the narrative. 

I would argue the quests are largely there to give you a reason to go from A to B, to meet new people, and explore the world more. Now you might say that any interaction with the game world can form a narrative, and how you do it equates to narrative choice, and you'd be right to an extent.  However, I don't think that's what you meant.

I'd argue that everything you do in Skyrim is part of a self-made non linear narrative.

=D

[adlocutio]

Meris wrote...

I'd argue that everything you do in Skyrim is part of a self-made non linear narrative.

I guess it comes down to how you define 'narrative'. Certainly not how Bioware does it. And I guess that's the point.

[wsandista]

Merci357 wrote...

My problem with the voiced protagonist in BW games is that it's neither an empty vessel to be filled by me, like the Courier or the Dragonborn, nor it's a predefined character like Adam Jensen, Michael Thorton or Geralt of Riva.

However, DA2 was a step in the later direction. ME3 had it overdone with it's auto dialogue, but I loved in DA2 that Hawke wasn't detached from the party, she actively engaged in party banter, something I don't want to see go away entirely. Maybe prompt the player to engage in banter is possible via a QTE event, I've no idea. But since a voiced protagonist is already set in stone regarding DA3, you might want to use it's strong points, not combat it's weaknesses.

Exactly, I prefer a empty vessel in my RPGs where a silent-protagonist works the best. I find it harder, if not impossible, to completely know how my character thinks and feels with auto-dialouge, which cripples my ability to effectively roleplay.

[Maria Caliban]

My issue here is that it's 'self-made.'

Exploration is great and adds to the weight of the world, but it's not role-playing. Likewise, I can write fan-fiction about my Skyrim PC that's a self-made narrative. In fact, when I do PnP games, I often write out back-stories for my characters, reactions to in-game events, or simple day-to-day stuff that doesn't make it into the game proper.

It's great supplemental material and improves the experience, but to me, role-playing demands a certain level of interactivity.

It's awesome that Skyrim lets me murder someone, strip them naked, and drag their body through the streets, but if no one react to that, it's not role-playing.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I agree with Maria.

RP, at it's most basic level, is you pretending to be someone else. Without interactivity though, that's RP at its most simplistic. It's essentially you dressing up at home and pretending to be a wizard, with no one else to see, and pretending to enchant your soup or hold an imaginary conversation with a mannequin that has 'NPC' stickytaped to its chest.

Complex RP is about interacting with other characters, be they controlled by other people or a computer. If the narrative only exists in your own head that's...well, daydreaming. It can form a part of RP, it can support RP, but at some point you need other characters to interact with and challenge you...characters who you don't control. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

Or a mannequin.

The best RP, IMO, is where the interactivity leads to realistic reactions. That's the bit cRPGs will always be working on, I think, as AI has a long way to go.

[Sylvius the Mad]

adlocutio wrote...

You assume the rules (or dice-rolls) can't be bent to fit the narrative, when in fact the first rule of the 2nd Ed DM's guide says to do exactly that.

I think that's a bad rule.  I strongly oppose any segregation of gameplay and narrative.

[Joy Divison]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

adlocutio wrote...

You assume the rules (or dice-rolls) can't be bent to fit the narrative, when in fact the first rule of the 2nd Ed DM's guide says to do exactly that.

I think that's a bad rule.  I strongly oppose any segregation of gameplay and narrative.

I agree but from my non-scientific study of DM's, "fudging" dice-rolls is typically deemed desirable and supported by the rules.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I agree with Maria.

RP, at it's most basic level, is you pretending to be someone else. Without interactivity though, that's RP at its most simplistic. It's essentially you dressing up at home and pretending to be a wizard, with no one else to see, and pretending to enchant your soup or hold an imaginary conversation with a mannequin that has 'NPC' stickytaped to its chest.

Complex RP is about interacting with other characters, be they controlled by other people or a computer. If the narrative only exists in your own head that's...well, daydreaming. It can form a part of RP, it can support RP, but at some point you need other characters to interact with and challenge you...characters who you don't control. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

I agree, to an extent.

Roleplaying is, I think, simply the act of perceiving a world from another person's perspective, and making decisions from that perspective.  However, without the stimulus offered by a game (be it tabletop or CRPG), you are simply daydreaming.  That doesn't make daydreaming any less roleplaying, but it does make it less interesting roleplaying.  Being given stimulus to which to respond - stimulus you do not control (like the setting, or other characters) - is a better launching point for deep roleplaying.

That's what the CRPG should do - offer stimulus, and an environment in which to respond to that stimulus.  A well-written authored narrative serves as excellent stimulus.  But the roleplaying itself will always occur entirely within the player's mind.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joy Divison wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

adlocutio wrote...

You assume the rules (or dice-rolls) can't be bent to fit the narrative, when in fact the first rule of the 2nd Ed DM's guide says to do exactly that.

I think that's a bad rule.  I strongly oppose any segregation of gameplay and narrative.

I agree but from my non-scientific study of DM's, "fudging" dice-rolls is typically deemed desirable and supported by the rules.

The limit of this I will accept from a CRPG is differing death mechanics for the PCs and their enemies.  I would rather they all have the same death mechanic, but I understand why developers so rarely offer that.  That differing death mechanic is effectively a fudged roll.  "Oh, you didn't die.  You were just knocked unconscious."

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 mars 2012 - 03:11 .

[Curlain]

Maria Caliban wrote...

My issue here is that it's 'self-made.'

Exploration is great and adds to the weight of the world, but it's not role-playing. Likewise, I can write fan-fiction about my Skyrim PC that's a self-made narrative. In fact, when I do PnP games, I often write out back-stories for my characters, reactions to in-game events, or simple day-to-day stuff that doesn't make it into the game proper.

It's great supplemental material and improves the experience, but to me, role-playing demands a certain level of interactivity.

It's awesome that Skyrim lets me murder someone, strip them naked, and drag their body through the streets, but if no one react to that, it's not role-playing.

True but Bioware games have their own issues in this regard.  In any BioWare game I can remember (including the BG games) you can go into anyone's house etc, and pretty much steal anything you like out of there, with the resisdents present, and unless it's part of a quest there will be no reaction.  In this respect the ES games have more reactivity, if you are caught stealing or breaking in somewhere the game world reacts (and usually if you murder someone in front of someone the gameworld reacts to that action as well).

[Rorschachinstein]

Party Banter is caramel pudding. More caramel pudding.

[Maria Caliban]

I have fudged dice-rolls. I see that as my adjusting to problems in the game system.

Exalted is a good example of this. On a lucky hit, a mortal with a mallet can one-shot kill a demigod. It's not what the designers intended, it's the opposite of what they desired, but they're better at designing settings, characters, and cool powers than they are combat systems.

Curlain wrote...

True but Bioware games have their own issues in this regard.  In any BioWare game I can remember (including the BG games) you can go into anyone's house etc, and pretty much steal anything you like out of there, with the resisdents present, and unless it's part of a quest there will be no reaction.  In this respect the ES games have more reactivity, if you are caught stealing or breaking in somewhere the game world reacts (and usually if you murder someone in front of someone the gameworld reacts to that action as well).

To be sure, I wasn't criticizing Skyrim or calling it less of an RPG.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 mars 2012 - 03:55 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I agree, to an extent.

Roleplaying is, I think, simply the act of perceiving a world from another person's perspective, and making decisions from that perspective.  However, without the stimulus offered by a game (be it tabletop or CRPG), you are simply daydreaming.  That doesn't make daydreaming any less roleplaying, but it does make it less interesting roleplaying.  Being given stimulus to which to respond - stimulus you do not control (like the setting, or other characters) - is a better launching point for deep roleplaying.

That's what the CRPG should do - offer stimulus, and an environment in which to respond to that stimulus.  A well-written authored narrative serves as excellent stimulus.  But the roleplaying itself will always occur entirely within the player's mind.

I agree with all of that, I think, except a bit in the last paragraph. Forgive me if I'm misreading you (or reading too much) here.

Roleplaying in a CRPG cannot occur entirely in the player's mind, as a CRPG is constrained by what it allows the player to say and do.

Then there's autodialogue (to steer us back on topic ), and other instances where the game imposes it's 'will' on the player's character by making them do or say things that the player never authorises. At best, we can rationalise what happens and try to find a way to make it feel In Chracter in our minds, thus roleplay our way through it, however grudgingly. At worst, we reject the incident as Out of Character, even invasive...yet the Game will still say it happened, no matter how we might have preferred to RP it in our heads. This is where we go 'I reject how this game ends, and I'm writing my own version!' -- but that won't be RP, it'll be fiction.

[thats1evildude]

Myself, I tend to see this thing called "roleplaying" as merely bringing another character's story to life. I try to let the character's circumstances inform the character I'm playing and the choices I make. I don't see auto-dialogue as an issue so long as it reflects the type of character that I've been playing. In fact, I prefer the character to have a personality of his own; the only times I really felt a kinship with my Warden was during those rare times he expressed himself without my prompting.

Oh sure, I have certain preferences for what stories I want to RP, and I'll quickly abandon a narrative I'm not interested in seeing to its end. For instance, I never got past the gates of Ostagar with a DN Warden because I couldn't rationalize playing the character as anything but a brutal sociopath. I'm interested in heroic fantasy, which DAO and DA2 nicely fit the bill.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 23 mars 2012 - 05:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I agree with all of that, I think, except a bit in the last paragraph. Forgive me if I'm misreading you (or reading too much) here.

Roleplaying in a CRPG cannot occur entirely in the player's mind, as a CRPG is constrained by what it allows the player to say and do.

The CRPG does constrain roleplaying, yes, but that doesn't change that the roleplaying that does occur happens inside the player's mind.

The more rigid those CRPG restrictions are, the less roleplaying there is available.

Then there's autodialogue (to steer us back on topic ), and other instances where the game imposes it's 'will' on the player's character by making them do or say things that the player never authorises. At best, we can rationalise what happens and try to find a way to make it feel In Chracter in our minds, thus roleplay our way through it, however grudgingly. At worst, we reject the incident as Out of Character, even invasive...yet the Game will still say it happened, no matter how we might have preferred to RP it in our heads. This is where we go 'I reject how this game ends, and I'm writing my own version!' -- but that won't be RP, it'll be fiction.

Whenever the game does as you describe, then the game (as a roleplaying environment) is broken.  Any instance of autodialogue renders roleplaying impossible, as the player is now faced with behaviour that potentially (probably, even, for carefully developed characeters) contradicts the player's character concept.

Rationalisation cannot fix this.  The problem isn't just that the player didn't expect the behaviour, but, by not having been chosen by the player, the dialogue is likely to break the character.  Inconsistency cannot be rationalised away.

Also, I spend a lot of time choosing dialogue options, because I want to ensure that the option I'm choosing is wholly consistent with my character's past choices.  If I'm forced then to rationalise an option I didn't expect, can I do that quickly enough to be ready to interpret all subsequent events from the perspective my character would now have (which is different from the perspective I expected him to have, and in which I was already immersed)?  If a cutscene begins, which I cannot pause, how can I respond in-character to this new stimulus when I haven't yet determined what my character is?

Autodialogue irreparably breaks roleplaying.  The automatic ambient banter in Legacy was a bridge too far.

[Sylvius the Mad]

thats1evildude wrote...

I don't see auto-dialogue as an issue so long as it reflects the type of character that I've been playing.

What if it doesn't?

I have yet to see any instance of autodialogue that was consistent with the character I was playing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...


I have fudged dice-rolls. I see that as my adjusting to problems in the game system.

Exalted is a good example of this. On a lucky hit, a mortal with a mallet can one-shot kill a demigod. It's not what the designers intended, it's the opposite of what they desired, but they're better at designing settings, characters, and cool powers than they are combat systems.

The combat system is an aspect of the setting.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 mars 2012 - 05:35 .

[thats1evildude]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What if it doesn't?

Generally hasn't been a problem, outside of one or two instances. But as I said, I largely let the circumstances inform the character I'm playing. I'm worried more about the dialogue fitting the scene.

The biggest issue I've had with auto-dialogue was party banter that felt "out of sequence". For instance, if Merrill and Varric's first conversation is about taking too many night trips through Lowtown, and then their next dialogue is Merrill saying to Varric "I've never met a dwarf before." The first convo suggests a degree of familiarity, the second convo suggests they just recently met.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 23 mars 2012 - 05:50 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Rationalisation cannot fix this.  The problem isn't just that the player didn't expect the behaviour, but, by not having been chosen by the player, the dialogue is likely to break the character.  Inconsistency cannot be rationalised away.

Not unless we're willing to change our characters' inner workings to fit into the game's mold. That's the sort of rationalisation I mean -- being a little flexible. Believe me when I say I don't consider it to be the ideal solution, or even a solution at all, I suppose , but even without autodialogue we're faced with inconsistency we have to deal with somehow.

I'm particularly minded of a conversation with Alistair in DA:O, just after he's met his sister and he's talking to the PC about it. There are five options to respond to him with, but, for my first game at least, none of them were what my character wanted to say. So I had to settle, be a little flexible. I wasn't entirely happy, but DA:O was pretty generous with its dialogue choices so I could easily forgive it. Besides, even with a hundred choices they'll never cover everything. Not even 'Hello'.

Also, I spend a lot of time choosing dialogue options, because I want to ensure that the option I'm choosing is wholly consistent with my character's past choices.  If I'm forced then to rationalise an option I didn't expect, can I do that quickly enough to be ready to interpret all subsequent events from the perspective my character would now have (which is different from the perspective I expected him to have, and in which I was already immersed)?  If a cutscene begins, which I cannot pause, how can I respond in-character to this new stimulus when I haven't yet determined what my character is?

I do tend to do a lot of save/reloads on my first game to try and see as much as I can, then save the RP for the second game. I've recently decided I find it easier to see what the parametres of modern cRPGs are, what the wriggle room is, then tailor-create a character that won't be confounded by the system. That worked pretty well for my Angry Apostate in DA2, until her viscount-by-achievement was, IIRC, stated to be non-story related/unintended. Even when you play by the rules you get frustrated.

Even DA:O wasn't perfect. My first character, a Cousland, wanted to defend Ser Jory at the Joining as he was a knight of Highever. Feudal obligations and all that. The game wouldn't allow it. So, shocked by the flagrant murder, she wanted to throw the Cup in Duncan's face or otherwise refuse to drink. Couldn't do that either. So I had to change my character concept.

I don't think I had a point here, so I'll just say that pausing during cutscenes would be cool.

Autodialogue irreparably breaks roleplaying.  The automatic ambient banter in Legacy was a bridge too far.

Agree with that wholeheartedly. I didn't play Legacy, but the PC banter existed in MotA as well.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Re: the auto-banter, while the auto part is bad, it's not very immersive when everyone talks as if you're invisible either.