485 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm sure at some point they will do the pre-gen character, likely a choice of a male or a female like Harvest Moon.

I think that's a bit extreme... But hey, at least we'd still get to pick our romance option, and grow some turnips.

[Dakota Strider]

Rabid Rooster wrote...

1st of all who wants to play a "regular" guy or gal in a fantasy game?

Let me explain something i had to explain to some new guys in my pen and paper D&D game.

Player Characters are the olypmic superstars of there time and world. Thats what makes them more than human, better than the aveage joe farmer/village/solider.

or I can put it like i explained something to a friend about the moive Dusk Till Dawn when he asked where the hell did all those badasses in the bar come from.

I explained it in rpg terms lol. In any givening game world in any given tarven there is going be atleast one maybe two high level NPCs or PCs.

Just for the sake of argument, lets agree with your premise that the average adventurer is the level of an Olympic athlete.  Even the most legendary Olympic champions are still very human, and are usually only extraordinary at one specialized skill set.   And often, the difference between a top level Olympic star, and someone that is at a lower level, is not that great.

Also, Olympic athletes for the most part, put a tremendous amount of work into excelling at what they do.  For many, they put more time into training, than most people do at a full time job.  So, I would consider them to be just "regular" guys, who chose to achieve a goal,and would not be deterred from it.   I am not ignoring that most Olympic champions have a little bit more natural ability, than the average person, but without the work and training, the natural ability would never be noticed.

And to answer your first question, I think there are plenty of us that would like to be a "regular" guy, that actually has to work to succeed.  Being tested by circumstance and difficult opponents, as well as hard work would not only cause us to rise above "normalcy" and "the average" , but would help to polish those hidden talents that all of us have within us. 

Which is more satisfying?:   Winning against an equal or superior opponent?  OR  Winning against an inferior opponent?    I contend, that those that prefer to compete against opposition that does not challenge them, are those that would seek to play a character that is far superior than the average person.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 06 mai 2012 - 04:04 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

nightscrawl wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm sure at some point they will do the pre-gen character, likely a choice of a male or a female like Harvest Moon.

I think that's a bit extreme... But hey, at least we'd still get to pick our romance option, and grow some turnips.

Not all people roleplay for romance. Some people may roleplay for adventure without being forced to direct pre-gen character. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 mai 2012 - 04:14 .

[nightscrawl]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Not all people roleplay for romance. Some people may roleplay for adventure without being forced to direct pre-gen character. 

*sigh* I was joking...

[Sacred_Fantasy]

nightscrawl wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Not all people roleplay for romance. Some people may roleplay for adventure without being forced to direct pre-gen character. 

*sigh* I was joking...

I know. The idea of playing pre-gen character in future BioWare games just make me nervous. I never enjoy playing pre-gen character. I never completed any pre-gen rpg except recently Alpha Protocol, thank for BobSmith, I know what to expect from Alpha Protocol. And even then I  still have mixed feeling about it. I'm not used to roleplay pre-gen character. It's too disconnecting and still feel like watching a movie. I really hate to write off BioWare games because of that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cigne wrote...

To me that contradicts the idea of self--if it's not you in that past life, what connection is there? Those past lives might as well be 'really' someone else; unique individuals from say, a history book.

That's typically how I view them.

If I don't remember doing something, then it may as well have not been me doing it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rabid Rooster wrote...

1st of all who wants to play a "regular" guy or gal in a fantasy game?

I do.

Otherwise, where's the sense of accomplishment?  If my character was already superhuman when I got him, what exactly did I bring to the table?

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

He's trying to play a game.  We're trying to play a character.

You can't do one without the other. The character is the vehicle through the game.

Asking why a pre-generated character does something is like asking why you do something. Why do you do the things you do ? Do you know why ? 

Of course I know why.  I know my own mind.  I know my preferences, and I know that I won't contradict them in the future.

With a pre-gen character, I don't know that.  I don't know that there won't be some future event written into the game that will cause my character to do something in opposition to a motive I invented for him.

All characters are reflections of the people who play them.

Of course.

Or their actions are dictated by the players desire to see game content.

That's metagame behaviour.  That has nothing to do with roleplaying.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Rabid Rooster wrote...

1st of all who wants to play a "regular" guy or gal in a fantasy game?

I do.

Otherwise, where's the sense of accomplishment?  If my character was already superhuman when I got him, what exactly did I bring to the table?

In almost all RPGs the PC starts off as a level 1 peon who can barely handle goblins or wolves without having to rest or drink potions often.

I personally can't think of any good cRPGs where the player started off as a legendary hero who can kill great wyrms in one blow at the start of the adventure.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Otherwise, where's the sense of accomplishment?  If my character was already superhuman when I got him, what exactly did I bring to the table?

Nothing. The premise is flawed. There has to be something spectacular about the character that leads to the unlikely success. If the character is average in all possible respects, then the only explanation for the rare outcome is chance, and then there's nothing ever brought to the table.

Even something like "hard work" or "determination" are characteristics that would have to score much higher than the population mean to be significant in doing the work required for a rare outcome.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
With a pre-gen character, I don't
know that.  I don't know that there won't be some future event written
into the game that will cause my character to do something in opposition
to a motive I invented for him.

This is why I don't understand your insistence on your playstyle. Your approach is to suppose as much ambiguity as possible - but then you just draw arbitrary boundaries around what ambiguity you're supposing.

Why not just 'imagine' that the voice is not there? Or that it is a sign of demonic possesion? Really good hearing, when someone's conversation just happens to overlap with yours and you hear them instead of hearing yourself speak? Why is any stimulus from the game world relevant to what you suppose?

That's my objection to your playstyle. It makes it impossible to distinguish, in a principled way, between content in the game (as in, content that was physically developed and put in the game) and content I imagine, because it supposes that content I imagine takes precedent over any content in game.

I suppose your response is that you are only dealing with ambiguity, but that's not true. You make further suppositions than that (for example, in relation to how conversation works).

[wsandista]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Otherwise, where's the sense of accomplishment?  If my character was already superhuman when I got him, what exactly did I bring to the table?

Nothing. The premise is flawed. There has to be something spectacular about the character that leads to the unlikely success. If the character is average in all possible respects, then the only explanation for the rare outcome is chance, and then there's nothing ever brought to the table.

Even something like "hard work" or "determination" are characteristics that would have to score much higher than the population mean to be significant in doing the work required for a rare outcome.

What is flawed about the premise? Spectacular and Superhuman are very different things you know.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
With a pre-gen character, I don't
know that.  I don't know that there won't be some future event written
into the game that will cause my character to do something in opposition
to a motive I invented for him.

This is why I don't understand your insistence on your playstyle. Your approach is to suppose as much ambiguity as possible - but then you just draw arbitrary boundaries around what ambiguity you're supposing.

Well I don't know if my playstyle and Sylvius are the same, but using ambiguity, there is a difference in what is not explicitly stated with nothing to contradict or support it, which is left up to player interpretation, and what is unknown that is revealed later. When that unknown is forced on the player is when RP is broken(excluding spells like geas, which force you to do something).

Why not just 'imagine' that the voice is not there? Or that it is a sign of demonic possesion? Really good hearing, when someone's conversation just happens to overlap with yours and you hear them instead of hearing yourself speak? Why is any stimulus from the game world relevant to what you suppose?

Because it IS there. When I use my imagination I supplement what is stated by filling in what isn't explicitly stated. When something IS explicitly stated I can not use imagination to wish it away. So when a PC does something I did not intend for him to do, it breaks the character I created.

[Dakota Strider]

In Exile wrote...

Even something like "hard work" or "determination" are characteristics that would have to score much higher than the population mean to be significant in doing the work required for a rare outcome.

Hard work is a choice, not a characteristic.  Anyone can choose to work hard and make the most out of the talents and skills they were born with.  Usually the most successful in any field, are the ones that choose to do this.  Luck is nothing more than working hard to be prepared, when an opportunity presents itself. 

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
Why is any stimulus from the game world relevant to what you suppose?

Demonstration.

Either it (whatever it is) is demonstrated, or it is not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Nothing. The premise is flawed. There has to be something spectacular about the character that leads to the unlikely success. If the character is average in all possible respects, then the only explanation for the rare outcome is chance, and then there's nothing ever brought to the table.

I'm suggesting that the spectular characteristic that leads to unlikely success should be something provided by the player.  Ambition would work.

Even something like "hard work" or "determination" are characteristics that would have to score much higher than the population mean to be significant in doing the work required for a rare outcome.

Agreed.  My point is that the character I'm given shouldn't exhibit those characteristics.  Those characteristics should come from me.

Even if the character is exceptionally skilled at warfare, that should be true because I made it true (and doing so was not a trivial decision - if the character has some sort of statistical advantage, make me pay for it either through a corresponding disadvantage, or hard work, or even just patience.

This is why I don't understand your insistence on your playstyle. Your approach is to suppose as much ambiguity as possible - but then you just draw arbitrary boundaries around what ambiguity you're supposing.

I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the current discussion.

Accepting that:

No, my approach is to fail to resolve ambiguity.  I need not posit ambiguity.

Why not just 'imagine' that the voice is not there? Or that it is a sign of demonic possesion? Really good hearing, when someone's conversation just happens to overlap with yours and you hear them instead of hearing yourself speak? Why is any stimulus from the game world relevant to what you suppose?

I can do that, but ignoring explicit in-game content tends to render much of the gameplay irrelevant.  It certainly did in DA2 (though I can't tell if that's because they left so little ambiguity, or because it just wasn't a very good game).

The framed narrative mechanic in DA2 was a terrific means for me to dismiss explicit in-game content as Varric's fabrication.  It didn't make the game any better, though.

That's my objection to your playstyle. It makes it impossible to distinguish, in a principled way, between content in the game (as in, content that was physically developed and put in the game) and content I imagine, because it supposes that content I imagine takes precedent over any content in game.

I don't think you're describing my playstyle correctly.

I give precedence to in-game content.  I then fill gaps as I see fit with imagined content.  But I cannot then undo imagined content once in-game decisions have been based upon it.  Contradictions cannot ever be resolved.

So, if I imagine why the KotOR PC is on the Endar Spire at the start of the game, then as long as that detail remains relevant to the PC I can make decisions based on it.  Only if the game contradicts me in an explicit way would there ever be a problem, and I can't even imagine how that could even happen.  I'm not sure it's possible for the game to contradict me about a backstory.

But a voiced PC of the sort they've used in DA2 and the ME games will often contradict my design, as the character acts in a way that is incompatible with my design.

I can deal with nearly anything that isn't PC behaviour.  But as long as I grant primacy to in-game content, then any pre-written PC behaviour in-game threatens to break the game.  In fact, it is likely to break the game.

[M0RD3CA1 VII]

If you were a "God amongst humans" wouldn't your choices carry more weight ...???

[PinkShoes]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Warden is the only surviving member of a super order who saves 'the world' from an ancient, mindless evil. You can sacrifice yourself, or you can have sex with a woman, or convince someone else to have sex with her, or sacrifice a companion.

Hawke is a refugee who rose to prominence in a city but was ultimately a pawn of history.

The first is a massive ego stroke on two legs. The second is a regular character.

Its funny cause what you say is true but i found the Wardens fight way more of a struggle. The Warden had to fight hard but Hawke just fell into all this and because we never saw Hawke's struggle it didn't feel as human.

In the next DA3 i really hope we see and get to play through the struggles and make the friendship real. Like wouldn't it have been waaay funnier to actually play the Isabela's old boot and poem quest than just hear about it. The friendships feel shallow in DA2. In DAO the interaction you have with people makes the story feel realer.  Bioware have said so many times there is the same amount of talking in DAO and DA2 that you have with your party members but i have to call BS on that. I once talked with my companions for like 30 minutes in DAO. I never did that in DA2.

[PinkShoes]

John Epler wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Filament wrote...

Your impression of the game is still incredibly skewed, apparently, if you think Hawke "conquers" the city. The champion title does not mean much at all.

When it should, considering the "Champion" is invited to parties and his/her opinion is apparently influential in conflicts.

What's the point of giving it the air of importance if the game is going to fall short on delivering how it is important? I can't build political connections or undermine the authority of the person I see as the true threat to Kirkwall.

I can't do much of anything with a role that's chalked up to being important by citizens but is displayed in-game as being nothing more then a figurehead title.

It -is- important to the citizens, and likely to the minor nobles, because Hawke liberated the city. And, while the major movers and shakers might take issue with someone being catapulted to a position with some political clout, they can't really speak out against it without it causing a lot of ill feelings among the citizenry. I always saw it as putting Hawke in a position where he can't be ignored, and where he has enough influence (due to his actions in Act Two) that having him support one side over the other could be seen as beneficial insofar as popular opinion is concerned.

It's like in any democracy that has multiple parties - sure, that party that holds six seats may be tiny, but if they have the ability to sway the vote then the bigger parties are going to be treating them with a reverence and a respect far in excess of the importance that their size would suggest.

You know the problem of what you just said is? You had to tell us that. We didn't feel it ingame. Isn't it bad when we have to be reassured there wont be reused environments, we will get more control over our party members. Thats not a good thing that we are told this, we shouldn't have to be because it should of never been done in DA2.

All the information we have of DA3 so far is information to reassure the consumer that DA3 wont make the same mistakes of DA2. Its sad.

[wsandista]

PinkShoes wrote...

John Epler wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Filament wrote...

Your impression of the game is still incredibly skewed, apparently, if you think Hawke "conquers" the city. The champion title does not mean much at all.

When it should, considering the "Champion" is invited to parties and his/her opinion is apparently influential in conflicts.

What's the point of giving it the air of importance if the game is going to fall short on delivering how it is important? I can't build political connections or undermine the authority of the person I see as the true threat to Kirkwall.

I can't do much of anything with a role that's chalked up to being important by citizens but is displayed in-game as being nothing more then a figurehead title.

It -is- important to the citizens, and likely to the minor nobles, because Hawke liberated the city. And, while the major movers and shakers might take issue with someone being catapulted to a position with some political clout, they can't really speak out against it without it causing a lot of ill feelings among the citizenry. I always saw it as putting Hawke in a position where he can't be ignored, and where he has enough influence (due to his actions in Act Two) that having him support one side over the other could be seen as beneficial insofar as popular opinion is concerned.

It's like in any democracy that has multiple parties - sure, that party that holds six seats may be tiny, but if they have the ability to sway the vote then the bigger parties are going to be treating them with a reverence and a respect far in excess of the importance that their size would suggest.

You know the problem of what you just said is? You had to tell us that. We didn't feel it ingame. Isn't it bad when we have to be reassured there wont be reused environments, we will get more control over our party members. Thats not a good thing that we are told this, we shouldn't have to be because it should of never been done in DA2.

All the information we have of DA3 so far is information to reassure the consumer that DA3 wont make the same mistakes of DA2. Its sad.

Next thing you know, they'll have to reassure us that it will be an rpg

[Vormaerin]

In Exile wrote...

Even something like "hard work" or "determination" are characteristics that would have to score much higher than the population mean to be significant in doing the work required for a rare outcome.

My problem with the Warden and characters like the Warden are that they are exactly the opposite of the person you just described.

The Warden didn't do a damn thing to earn their place (except the commoner dwarf winning the tourney, maybe). 

The story made Hawke too passive at some points, but Hawke was not a hand picked hero cursed with awesome by fate to save the world.   The warden was.   Oh, look, the wise mentor picked you to be the f********* who has cosmic destiny and spiffy powers.  You are only noteworthy because some fool gave you magic potion and then got killed. Who you are is completely irrelevant.    Are you a murderous knife ear **** from the ghetto?  No problem, you can still come to the high table and decide the rulers of the various lands BECAUSE YOU DRANK THE MAGIC POTION!

Shepard in ME1 was a good character.   Pretty much a very competent, mid ranked commando officer like thousands of other folk in the Alliance. Then ME2 pretty much jumps the shark and he becomes first a Cassandra, then the Messiah for no real reason.

Yes, I expect to be very good at what I do since I'm actually the hero.   But I'd like to play games where I am that very competent normal person who kicks ass because I work hard at being at the right place with the right know how.  Not because I am the messiah that everyone fawns over all the time.

If you are going to be a god of some sort, then do something like PST where being a god is pretty normal and no one gives a rat's ass.  Not to mention the plot is a massive case of navel gazing with no real effect on the rest of the universe.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 08 mai 2012 - 07:04 .

[Vormaerin]

wsandista wrote...

In almost all RPGs the PC starts off as a level 1 peon who can barely handle goblins or wolves without having to rest or drink potions often.

I personally can't think of any good cRPGs where the player started off as a legendary hero who can kill great wyrms in one blow at the start of the adventure.

Well, not in game mechanics terms perhaps.  But its extremely rare that the story actually justifies the shift from lvl 1 to lvl 30.  The story pretty much normalizes your competence at the high end in DAO.   Or do you really think you got that much better in three or four months?    "Wow, just four short months ago, I struggled to take down one ogre with three people to help me.  Now I solo them three and four at a time. Its all thanks to Darkspawn Brand Nutritional Supplements.  Get yours at the nearest Warden outlet today!"

At least in DA2, you start off considered very accomplished and years go by during the course of the game.   Even then, the scale of your enemies doesn't really change.  You aren't going from kicking puppies for xp to curbstomping dragons the next week.   In game terms, you can do a lot more, but the "story" around you isn't warped to support your power growth.  It assumes you are badass from day one.

[esper]

Vormaerin wrote...

wsandista wrote...

In almost all RPGs the PC starts off as a level 1 peon who can barely handle goblins or wolves without having to rest or drink potions often.

I personally can't think of any good cRPGs where the player started off as a legendary hero who can kill great wyrms in one blow at the start of the adventure.

Well, not in game mechanics terms perhaps.  But its extremely rare that the story actually justifies the shift from lvl 1 to lvl 30.  The story pretty much normalizes your competence at the high end in DAO.   Or do you really think you got that much better in three or four months?    "Wow, just four short months ago, I struggled to take down one ogre with three people to help me.  Now I solo them three and four at a time. Its all thanks to Darkspawn Brand Nutritional Supplements.  Get yours at the nearest Warden outlet today!"

At least in DA2, you start off considered very accomplished and years go by during the course of the game.   Even then, the scale of your enemies doesn't really change.  You aren't going from kicking puppies for xp to curbstomping dragons the next week.   In game terms, you can do a lot more, but the "story" around you isn't warped to support your power growth.  It assumes you are badass from day one.

Yes, levels I freaking hate them from a roleplaying perspective. (I can see why they have to be there gameplaywise, though).

In da2 I came by the level thing by saying that my Hawke was always an accompliced blood/support mage. Which means that I in act 1 assumes that Hawke is a blood and arcane mages with all the talents from both threes and she also knows a little bit of entropy. Then in the three years timeskip she study the rest off the entropy three and in the next three years time skips she begins to study various buffs. It makes sense that way.

Likewise my warden was always a spirithealer who likes to throw fireballs at people from before Duncan meets her and then she just happens to stumble across this orb thing which gives her awesome power (I make sure to always to the elf quest first too.)

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bobsmith, that's your frame of mind. It's my frame of mind too. But not everyone has to play with the same frame of mind. Hence Sylvius' comment in playing a game or playing a character.

Personality is made up of nature(your genetic pre-dispositions) and nurture (your experiences/upbringing).

Characters are 100% nurture, they are what you make them. You give the character personality, then you play it while deviating as little as possible, within the boundries allowed by the game. Because the created personality is not a part of the game, how it fits varies. With a pre-gen character created for the purpose, the character will always fit 100%.

This is the contradiction of PST as a roleplaying game. With amnesia you have no personality and as a character TNO has no biology. That first choice in PST is 100% metagame. It's what you the player want to do.

[the_one_54321]

That has nothing to do with what you quoted.

[wsandista]

Vormaerin wrote...

wsandista wrote...

In almost all RPGs the PC starts off as a level 1 peon who can barely handle goblins or wolves without having to rest or drink potions often.

I personally can't think of any good cRPGs where the player started off as a legendary hero who can kill great wyrms in one blow at the start of the adventure.

Well, not in game mechanics terms perhaps.  But its extremely rare that the story actually justifies the shift from lvl 1 to lvl 30.  The story pretty much normalizes your competence at the high end in DAO.   Or do you really think you got that much better in three or four months?    "Wow, just four short months ago, I struggled to take down one ogre with three people to help me.  Now I solo them three and four at a time. Its all thanks to Darkspawn Brand Nutritional Supplements.  Get yours at the nearest Warden outlet today!"

At least in DA2, you start off considered very accomplished and years go by during the course of the game.   Even then, the scale of your enemies doesn't really change.  You aren't going from kicking puppies for xp to curbstomping dragons the next week.   In game terms, you can do a lot more, but the "story" around you isn't warped to support your power growth.  It assumes you are badass from day one.

A year of constantly fighting darkspawn would make the PC much more skilled and battle-hardened. DAO took place over the course of a year. It seems logical to me that the PC would gain quite a bit of skill during that time period, especially since in every origin it is heavily implied(if not explicitly stated) that the PC is extremely skilled and has huge potential.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

Well, not in game mechanics terms perhaps.  But its extremely rare that the story actually justifies the shift from lvl 1 to lvl 30. 

Which is why the best roleplaying games don't do that in a short period (or at all).

While I think DAO was a terrific game, I think it would have been better if the Warden rose from level 1 to level 8, rather than to level 25.