153 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It would not only be impossible from a technical perspective, but ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

I see somebody's never played tabletop.

Depends on the DM.

If it depends on anything, then it isn't impossible.

Just unlikely

Even the loosest DM'll have general rules.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Depends on the DM.

If it depends on anything, then it isn't impossible.

Just unlikely

Even the loosest DM'll have general rules.

I'm currently playing in two where the DM's just going by ear based on player actions. Heck, the DM in my 4e one let we the players design the setting by consensus. Just because this would be impossible in a video game doesn't mean its flatly impossible.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 août 2013 - 07:36 .

[David7204]

I have never played a tabletop game, but I know about them to immediately tell you the two mediums have very different advantages and limitations.

A tabletop game has a living, breathing thinking human reacting to the players' choices every step of the way. A video game simply cannot do that at all. It's a program. It have a very limited number of responses that must be implemented long in advanced. It cannot improvise or react beyond it's boundries.

Modifié par David7204, 23 août 2013 - 08:07 .

[abnocte]

I prefer the "avatar" version, but I could live with a predefined character if I'm given enough control. Control in the sense that the character does not act on his/her own and the game gives me enough information to make decisions on the character behalf.

In DA2 I felt like someone who was told to direct a movie without reading the script, not only that, I was only allowed to tell the main character in which mood s/he had to express him/herself but without knowing why....

Very frustrating.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

I have never played a tabletop game, but I know about them to immediately tell you the two mediums have very different advantages and limitations.

A tabletop game has a living, breathing thinking human reacting to the players' choices every step of the way. A video game simply cannot do that at all. It's a program. It have a very limited number of responses that must be implemented long in advanced. It cannot improvise or react beyond it's boundries.

No one is asking it to.

Just don't contradict the player about what his character is doing or why.

[n7stormrunner]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I have never played a tabletop game, but I know about them to immediately tell you the two mediums have very different advantages and limitations.

A tabletop game has a living, breathing thinking human reacting to the players' choices every step of the way. A video game simply cannot do that at all. It's a program. It have a very limited number of responses that must be implemented long in advanced. It cannot improvise or react beyond it's boundries.

No one is asking it to.

Just don't contradict the player about what his character is doing or why.

I'm going to regret this. how are they supposed to know the reason you think the character is doing things?

[Taleroth]

n7stormrunner wrote...

I'm going to regret this. how are they supposed to know the reason you think the character is doing things?

You don't really need to. People are pretty simple, generally speaking. You give the player some good popular choices and they'll be happy. Save the kingdom, get the girl, rule the world, that kind of thing. As long as they can find an enjoyable one in those possibilities you allow they will be happy.

The important thing to do here is to provide variety and don't stand in the player's way.

Modifié par Taleroth, 23 août 2013 - 06:37 .

[Ieldra]

n7stormrunner wrote...
I'm going to regret this. how are they supposed to know the reason you think the character is doing things?

They needn't know. It's just that they should take care not to put motivations in the protagonists' mouth at all if possible, because that could contradict what the player imagines. Let the player talk to make their decision, but leave the motivation open.

David Gaider explained this in his blog article about narrative design in games, in a paragraph about inclusiveness in games. To be inclusive, It's not necessary to explicitly cater to every possible viewpoint, but it is important not to actively exclude viewpoints. For instance, in DA2 you can side with the mages or the templars, but Hawke never makes any menton of why, and if he hints at things, it's in optional lines you can avoid.

DA has been remarkably good about that. ME has been a great offender.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 août 2013 - 06:59 .

[Shadow Fox]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Depends on the DM.

If it depends on anything, then it isn't impossible.

Just unlikely

Even the loosest DM'll have general rules.

I'm currently playing in two where the DM's just going by ear based on player actions. Heck, the DM in my 4e one let we the players design the setting by consensus. Just because this would be impossible in a video game doesn't mean its flatly impossible.

What I mean is god modding for example is pretty much untolerated.Also see the controversy over good aligned Drow and Tieflings.

[Arthur Cousland]

I want my character to feel like my own, and not simply a character that I move around.  I don't care if they have the option to ask questions that they "should" know, as asking the questions is usually optional.  My human noble in origins was never required to ask about Andraste and my dwarf noble was never required to ask about Branka or the Ancestors.

Perhaps, instead of having the pc ask these questions, there could be books around their home, that they player can read, to learn more on these topics, if asking another npc would feel like it's immersion-breaking.

[Boycott Bioware]

My character is always my Avatar in games, that is why i like memory lost or a stranger themed. I am lazy to read codex and books, i prefer asking NPCs and i want them to talk about things.

I don't choose Imperial in Oblivion and Nord in Skyrim, because of that reason. As Imperial, it is illogical to ask "who are you?" to the Emperor that obviously look like Emperor, funnily the Emperor respond is "i am your Emperor" instead of "who do you think i am? A jester?" and it is illogical not to know anything about the Nords while being a Nord in a place where Nords comes from and there is war regarding the Nords.

So, just make something, such as dumb question being responded in dumb way or sarcastic or something like that if the character is supposed to know something

Modifié par Qistina, 23 août 2013 - 07:20 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'm currently playing in two where the DM's just going by ear based on player actions. Heck, the DM in my 4e one let we the players design the setting by consensus. Just because this would be impossible in a video game doesn't mean its flatly impossible.

What I mean is god modding for example is pretty much untolerated.Also see the controversy over good aligned Drow and Tieflings.

So I can't have exactly the character I want. The fact remains that once I've got the character rolled, I can basically do whatever I want as long as the DM doesn't rule it to be impossible for the sake of his sanity. And my 4e DM lets our party get away with a lot of stupid behaviors. Like taunting mind flayer victims in illithid. Which is my point, just because video games limit the character's behavior by their very nature doesn't mean all RPG characters are limited.

Also, see my dark human samurai (yes, that's a race apparently) and my 3.5 necromancer.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 août 2013 - 07:23 .

[Arthur Cousland]

Qistina wrote...

My character is always my Avatar in games, that is why i like memory lost or a stranger themed. I am lazy to read codex and books, i prefer asking NPCs and i want them to talk about things.

I don't choose Imperial in Oblivion and Nord in Skyrim, because of that reason. As Imperial, it is illogical to ask "who are you?" to the Emperor that obviously look like Emperor, funnily the Emperor respond is "i am your Emperor" instead of "who do you think i am? A jester?" and it is illogical not to know anything about the Nords while being a Nord in a place where Nords comes from and there is war regarding the Nords.

So, just make something, such as dumb question being responded in dumb way or sarcastic or something like that if the character is supposed to know something

Good points.  Even if my dwarf noble asked about the Ancestors, npcs would question my pc, or make some rude comment, but still answer the question in the end.  Perhaps my dwarf had a bit too much to drink before he asked the question?

[Boycott Bioware]

Good points. Even if my dwarf noble asked about the Ancestors, npcs would question my pc, or make some rude comment, but still answer the question in the end. Perhaps my dwarf had a bit too much to drink before he asked the question?

I think the first dumb question i will ask as the Inquisitor in DA:I is...

"What is the Inquisitor/Inquisition?"

Modifié par Qistina, 23 août 2013 - 07:43 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Just don't contradict the player about what his character is doing or why.

All games do that. It all comes down to whether the player is in a comfortable enough space for some people to pretend as if the game isn't doing it. 

[Han Shot First]

A character in his or her own right, whose actions are determined by the player.

I don't want a blank slate character whose only purpose is to be 'me' in the world of Thedas. Thankfully I'm not likely to get that in a Bioware game.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 23 août 2013 - 08:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Just don't contradict the player about what his character is doing or why.

All games do that.

If you design a character whose identity is defined by his actions, sure. 

But in DA2, it didn't matter how the character was designed - any design at all was likely to be contradicted.

[Shadow Fox]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'm currently playing in two where the DM's just going by ear based on player actions. Heck, the DM in my 4e one let we the players design the setting by consensus. Just because this would be impossible in a video game doesn't mean its flatly impossible.

What I mean is god modding for example is pretty much untolerated.Also see the controversy over good aligned Drow and Tieflings.

So I can't have exactly the character I want. The fact remains that once I've got the character rolled, I can basically do whatever I want as long as the DM doesn't rule it to be impossible for the sake of his sanity. And my 4e DM lets our party get away with a lot of stupid behaviors. Like taunting mind flayer victims in illithid. Which is my point, just because video games limit the character's behavior by their very nature doesn't mean all RPG characters are limited.

Also, see my dark human samurai (yes, that's a race apparently) and my 3.5 necromancer.

That's my point there will always be limitations in some form if someone else runs the game.Expecting total control*like Sylvius seems to* is therefore unwise I think.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

That's my point there will always be limitations in some form if someone else runs the game.Expecting total control*like Sylvius seems to* is therefore unwise I think.

Limitations have nothing to do with control.  Limitations have to do with freedom, which is a different issue.

Having limitations is obviously necessary.  The list of available options needs always to be finite.

The problem arises when the player isn't permitted to choose among those options, and instead one is chosen for him.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

That's my point there will always be limitations in some form if someone else runs the game.Expecting total control*like Sylvius seems to* is therefore unwise I think.

Limitations have nothing to do with control.  Limitations have to do with freedom, which is a different issue.

Having limitations is obviously necessary.  The list of available options needs always to be finite.

The problem arises when the player isn't permitted to choose among those options, and instead one is chosen for him.

Oh I understand then.

[ninsegtari]

I prefer a character. An avatar is a representation of me... I am an uninteresting couch potato. Thus, I prefer a developed character.