3 réponses à ce sujet

[ladyofpayne]

She annoyed me the whole DAO and I killed her in Witch Hunt but now she returns back. Any chance to kill her in DAI?:innocent: I don't like to leave my work unfinished.

[David Gaider]

mx_keep13 wrote...
Why does the BSN want tot kill or romance everyone

I'm not sure which is more creepy, to be honest, the inevitable "will I get to romance them?" when any character is mentioned or the vaguely psychopathic "this character annoyed me at some point so I want to be able to slaughter them, even if it's with a new character who would know nothing about it".

We had a guy in a tabletop I was once in who did that. He'd roll a new character specifically to kill another party member who, in his mind, was responsible for his previous character's death. He was kind of a dick.

Anyway, yeah. Ultimately, the chances I would allow a character to be killed solely because the player might have some lingering grudge from two games ago? Nil. If it makes sense in the current story? Absolutely. If it doesn't make sense, will accusations of "plot armor" arise? Sure, and yet.

[David Gaider]

Ryzaki wrote...
Can we at least not get forced companions that are blatantly against our PC's goals? I miss being able to dismiss almost everyone in DAO.

That's a little different. I think most of the party members in DAI are optional or dismissable--if not all. For other characters, or party members that aren't, it really depends on whether the story offers an alternate route around their death. Sometimes we'll endeavour to put that in, if we feel allowing for their death adds something worthwhile--but we don't feel it always is, particularly if the amount of work required to provide an alternate path in the story is enormous in comparison. Naturally, the mileage of a particular fan on that account is going to vary, especially when it comes to things they believe are worthy of summary execution.

Modifié par David Gaider, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:16 .

[David Gaider]

My impression has always been that ANY character who doesn't put the player first above their own desires is betraying them. Those characters should realize the player is saving the world, or otherwise simply deserving of getting what they want, because the player can rationalize it.

In other words, it's another case of "I don't think that word means what you think it means." Calling it "betrayal" certainly makes it sound objectively worse than "they made me angry", however.