197 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Not really. A more accurate summation of what you're doing is erasing some of the filled gaps while claiming they were left open, which can also be done with VO.  

"Erasing" and "explaining away" are two totally different activities. 

Erasing the fact that Hawke says he believes in the Maker and wishes his mother is at his side is nearly impossible to do when your Hawke is supposed to not believe in the Maker and thinks his mother is worm food. 

Imagining a scenario where a lord would lie about his fighting ability and where others falsely bolster that reputation out of sycophantic flattery is not hard to imagine at all. In fact, it has been done so many times in medieval fantasy settings, it is practically a literary tool.

Your imagination is dealing with the wrong problem. Well done. You headcanoned a possible explanation for the Warden's lack of fighting ability. Now erase every other character's interaction in which they outright state you are an excellent fighter after watching you run away in combat multiple times.

This entire argument began over the inability of the PC to explain their intentions to npc's. This is a pretty relevant point.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is much of my gameplay in these games.  I routinely invent conversations that take place off-camera.

I'd argue you're not role-playing, but writing. A writer has ultimate command over the universe. This includes his own character, the setting, other characters, etc. A role-player has control of one perspective in this grand set piece.

This is one of the huge advantages in pen and paper, as it always provides an outside force capable of acting/reacting against your character's decision-making. In absence of that, it is the game's responsibility to acknowledge your character's actions, despite providing more limited opportunities resulting in fewer role-playing decisions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 12:35 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is much of my gameplay in these games.  I routinely invent conversations that take place off-camera.

I'd argue you're not role-playing, but writing. A writer has ultimate command over the universe. This includes his own character, the setting, other characters, etc. A role-player has control of one perspective in this grand set piece.

This is one of the huge advantages in pen and paper, as it always provides an outside force capable of acting/reacting against your character's decision-making. In absence of that, it is the game's responsibility to acknowledge your character's actions, despite providing more limited opportunities.

And what of Bioware's past comments about how they aren't just writing their world, but are actively writing it along with the fans?

Inspiring fan imagination is part of the purpose of any form of entertainment. 


Fans for years debated over whether the main character, Deckard, was a replicant or not. Because the movie didn't state it outright, merely gave hints or things that could be ignored or highlighted to make the argument, it was hotly debated. Leaving that ambiguity in the plot was intentional for Ridley Scott, but just because ambiguity isn't purposefully inserted doesn't mean it can't function in the exact same way.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And what of Bioware's past comments about how they aren't just writing their world, but are actively writing it along with the fans?

A misuse of terminology. Writing and role-playing have elements in common, but are not synonymous. Do people typically say Tolkien role-played Lord of the Rings or that he wrote Lord of the Rings?

Aside from which, I'm pretty sure Bioware has told players a lot of things which turned out to be false. See Mass Effect 3.

Fans for years debated over whether the main character, Deckard, was a replicant or not. Because the movie didn't state it outright, merely gave hints or things that could be ignored or highlighted to make the argument, it was hotly debated. Leaving that ambiguity in the plot was intentional for Ridley Scott, but just because ambiguity isn't purposefully inserted doesn't mean it can't function in the exact same way.

To start with, fan interpretation begins and ends with the work as written. Interpretation of a work doesn't involve fans inventing evidence. Fan interpretation doesn't translate to "I imagined a conversation where Deckard admitted to being a replicant". The comparison is inherently flawed.

A better comparison for what you're suggesting would be if the only moments where Deckard was a replicant occurred in the viewer's mind and fans used that as a basis for arguing that Deckard is a replicant.

That's a better example of your concept at work. It's not role-playing if I decide every aspect of the encounter including what my character says, what everyone else says, the setting, the tone, etc. That's all encompassed by your DM, either a person or the game world at work. What you're doing is essentially writing fanfiction and claiming that the game lets you roleplay the concept.

The only time your "cowardly" PC existed required you to write, never to role-play.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 01:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

To start with, fan interpretation begins and ends with the work as written. Interpretation of a work doesn't involve fans inventing evidence. Fan interpretation doesn't translate to "I imagined a conversation where Deckard admitted to being a replicant". The comparison is inherently flawed.  

No... but they imagined a scene where Deckard is genetically engineered and created, then had his memory altered to make him believe he was not a replicant.

That's a little more involved than imagining a conversation happening.

A better comparison for what you're suggesting would be if the only moments where Deckard was a replicant occurred in the viewer's mind and fans used that as a basis for arguing that Deckard is a replicant.

Given that Deckard is never outright stated to be a Replicant, this was every scene. If it never showed any conclusive evidence that he was or was not a Replicant, then every scene where you watch the movie and have one viewpoint over another is built on headcanon. One headcanon where Deckard has a regular life and birth, and another where he is living an artificial lie. 

That's a better example of your concept at work. It's not role-playing if I decide every aspect of the encounter including what my character says, what everyone else says, the setting, the tone, etc. That's all encompassed by your DM, either a person or the game world at work. What you're doing is essentially writing fanfiction and claiming that the game lets you roleplay the concept.

It's not roleplaying, because I am never Deckard when I watch Blade Runner. I am not controlling Deckard, I am not inputting my desires or commands into his behavior. 

It is simply an action of imaginiation. Based on the setting and events that occur within the movie, I imagine Deckard is a replicant, because the movie never overtly states it one way or the other.

It just so happens that Ridley Scott, after decades of debate, confirms that what I imagined was how he had envisioned it. That doesn't mean that those fans who imagined him as human were overtly wrong, just that they imagined something within the narrative that the writer hadn't intended (or that wasn't entirely true, given that I'm pretty confident that Ridley Scott intended the viewer to at least entertain the idea that either situation was true).

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

No... but they imagined a scene where Deckard is genetically engineered and created, then had his memory altered to make him believe he was not a replicant.

That's a little more involved than imagining a conversation happening.

Which didn't exist. See how easy that was? If the work itself doesn't have a scene of Deckard being created, then you cannot say "Deckard is a replicant because they have a scene of him being created".

Given that Deckard is never outright stated to be a Replicant, this was every scene. If it never showed any conclusive evidence that he was or was not a Replicant, then every scene where you watch the movie and have one viewpoint over another is built on headcanon. One headcanon where Deckard has a regular life and birth, and another where he is living an artificial lie. 

Again, you're misunderstanding the difference. Even if Deckard is never stated to be a replicant, all the evidence fans are pointing to as the basis for this judgment is contained in the work.

It's not roleplaying, because I am never Deckard when I watch Blade Runner. I am not controlling Deckard, I am not inputting my desires or commands into his behavior. 

It wouldn't be role-playing even if you were Deckard, if your only argument for event X occurring is that you made it up in you head.

It just so happens that Ridley Scott, after decades of debate, confirms that what I imagined was how he had envisioned it. That doesn't mean that those fans who imagined him as human were overtly wrong, just that they imagined something within the narrative that the writer hadn't intended (or that wasn't entirely true, given that I'm pretty confident that Ridley Scott intended the viewer to at least entertain the idea that either situation was true).

Who gives a damn what the director said? This is paramount to saying what Bioware says is important, which to my knowledge I have not argued. What Bioware as a company says doesn't matter. What Bioware implements into their game world does matter, because role-playing is dependent on something reacting to your stimulus, remember? There's a difference between the two.

If you want to believe that Deckard is a replicant because of X,Y, or Z scenes which occur in the movie and make you believe so, you're free to do so. But at least all your evidence of such could be traced back to the original work. That is why it's an interpretation.

What I'm pointing out is that you have used the term role-playing to justify writing in your own imaginary scenario into the story. That is the essence of writing a fanfiction. In this scenario, the events which are occurring are contingent entirely upon you, Fastjimmy, one person, not two (or more). When role-playing, it is necessary for you to have a single perspective from which to view and explore events.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 01:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Again, you're misunderstanding the difference. Even if Deckard is never stated to be a replicant, all the evidence fans are pointing to as the basis for this judgment is contained in the work.

And if I run away from every fight, acting like a total coward at every available opportunity, that adds evidence into thegame. Evidence that can be seen by anyone who is viewing my playthrough.

Who gives a damn what the director said? This is paramount to saying what Bioware says is important, which to my knowledge I have not argued. What Bioware as a company says doesn't matter. What Bioware implements into their game world does matter, because role-playing is dependent on something reacting to your stimulus, remember? There's a difference between the two.

If you want to believe that Deckard is a replicant because of X,Y, or Z scenes which occur in the movie and make you believe so, you're free to do so. But at least all your evidence of such could be traced back to the original work. That is why it's an interpretation.

What I'm pointing out is that you have used the term role-playing to justify writing in your own imaginary scenario into the story. That is the essence of writing a fanfiction. In this scenario, the events which are occurring are contingent entirely upon you, Fastjimmy, one person, not two (or more). When role-playing, it is necessary for you to have a single perspective from which to view and explore events.

Do you think Ridley Scott made the question ambiguous so that he could make people believe one side verse the other for years, then pull out the rug on them, saying they are wrong and should feel bad, decades down the road?

NO. Of course not. 

He did it because he realized the power of ambiguity in causing people's minds to spark and be open to interpretation. That the power of a story can come from just as much what is said and what is NOT said. That his ultimate version of the truth is one way or the other doesn't stop the people who viewed the movie with Deckard as a human to not enjoy the movie under the pretense any longer. If Ridley Scott took that secret to his grave, would everyone remain right? Would it matter? Does it even matter now?

Leaving a story open to being experienced in different ways and with different viewpoints speaks to the STRENGTH of the story, not the weakness of it. Having every single event, interaction, motivation and character nailed down rigidly for the viewer to experience without any need to add their own perspective into the story at all.


If you and I played through DA:O and made the exact same decisions - same Origin, same gender, same dialogue choices, same quest resolutions (like destroying the Anvil, everything - and then made a different choice about the Dark Ritual, is that one of us making up a head canon? The game gave us the exact same content, we made the exact same choices, yet one of us chose to interpret Morrigan's offer one way, and one of us the other.

Is this not because we headcanon ulterior motives, or possible benefits, that the game does not clearly state?

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And if I run away from every fight, acting like a total coward at every available opportunity, that adds evidence into thegame. Evidence that can be seen by anyone who is viewing my playthrough.

Really? Who acknowledged its existence? Not Alistair. Not Morrigan. Not Duncan when he recruited you. The only time your action (running away) ever has a consequence is when you wrote these imaginary scenes in your head. Not role-played, wrote.

Do you think Ridley Scott made the question ambiguous so that he could make people believe one side verse the other for years, then pull out the rug on them, saying they are wrong and should feel bad, decades down the road?

NO. Of course not. 

Again, who gives a crap? None of my points are contingent on Bioware or Ridley Scott as an authority figure.

He did it because he realized the power of ambiguity in causing people's minds to spark and be open to interpretation. That the power of a story can come from just as much what is said and what is NOT said. That his ultimate version of the truth is one way or the other doesn't stop the people who viewed the movie with Deckard as a human to not enjoy the movie under the pretense any longer. If Ridley Scott took that secret to his grave, would everyone remain right? Would it matter? Does it even matter now?

See above.

If Bioware said "you can't role-play a coward" while having characters in universe acknowledge your habit of running away from enemies, I'd say ignore what Bioware is telling you. Bioware's words and Bioware's created game world are two different things.

Leaving a story open to being experienced in different ways and with different viewpoints speaks to the STRENGTH of the story, not the weakness of it. Having every single event, interaction, motivation and character nailed down rigidly for the viewer to experience without any need to add their own perspective into the story at all.

You have leeway in how you interpret events, in so far as the game lets you express those beliefs. Hence diverse dialogue options. 

You're not asking for leeway in how to interpret your character. What you're actively trying to do is mask writing as role-playing which sorry, it ain't. The only time you can make excuses to "explain away" (as you put it) characters' statements is done off-screen, where you Fastjimmy become the author.

If you and I played through DA:O and made the exact same decisions - same Origin, same gender, same dialogue choices, same quest resolutions (like destroying the Anvil, everything - and then made a different choice about the Dark Ritual, is that one of us making up a head canon? The game gave us the exact same content, we made the exact same choices, yet one of us chose to interpret Morrigan's offer one way, and one of us the other.

Is this not because we headcanon ulterior motives, or possible benefits, that the game does not clearly state?

It's not a problem if it relates exclusively to your own character's thoughts. The problem comes when you put those thoughts into action. Think about how this works in real life for a second. You can think, quite literally, whatever you want. No one has the ability to act on what you're thinking because they cannot know what you're thinking. Your cowardly PC is something different.

For you to role-play this cowardly PC doesn't simply require an act of mental effort on your character. It also requires a visible component, something everything outside of yourself has the ability to respond to. You outlined this by your character running away. Now that there is an outside component to your character's role-playing concept, people in the game world need the ability to acknowledge it.

Game:"Hey, Fastjimmy's Warden is running away!"
Game: "Hey, I remember hearing his character is a deadly swordsman".
Fastjimmy's character: "Sorry guys, I lied to you".

Notice the dynamic here? Action-reaction. The game isn't acknowledging your actions in any of your scenarios. Everything related to Fastjimmy's character being a coward is done off-screen, which is the weakest argument for your position.

I want all my role-playing done off-screen about as much as I wanted the Mass Effect 2 Collector Base settled off-screen, which is to say not at all.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 01:51 .

[Il Divo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Pretty sure you just made it. It's not acknowledged, it's not a role-playing option. Seems a straightforward enough distinction.
 

So you think the game has to acknowledge your choice for it to be role-playing, kind of like In Exile?

Well, let's put it another way, since I think putting this way leads to some nitty gritty problems.

I think it's important for the game to be able to acknowledge a fundamental role-playing concept. KotOR lets you play an evil bastard who goes around murdering people. This is a role-playing concept and the game supports it through actions and dialogue.

You could argue that DA:O lets you play a coward by running away from people, but this is in such contradiction to the overarching narrative that by fastjimmy's own admission he has to write (not role-play) multiple excuses to get him out of it. And even then, the game isn't supporting his playstyle, ever.

You could rightfully point out that based on my post there's a lot of things about your character (ex: equipment) which the game never addresses, but I also don't think it's fundamentally important for the game to point out that your character is wearing a sword. Certainly not to the same extent that it has to reconcile the idea that your character is a coward with the idea that everyone thinks your character is involved in an epic plot to destroy an evil dragon.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 02:07 .

[Kikidori]

OP question: Why in all of that is holy would anyone allow a coward to siege the leadership of the Inquisition?

You have to remember, that not every type of character personality could become the LEADER of the Inquisition, I highly doubt a coward could ever become a leader in any kind of military group. Sure, you can be smart and not take battles where you don't need to (Which seems to be the case, as they have said you can just skip battles, by not engaging the enemy. )

However, some qualities of a leader for any kind of high-stake company, have been tested when it comes to handling stress, (terror), a no-win scenario and so on, nobody lets a nobody become the top-dog. So having options that are unsuited for a leader shouldn't be there at all. (Why would the others justify following you, if you are just cowering and squealing to everything )

[K_Tabris]

ianvillan wrote...

Is the dialogue wheel able to be made so we know what would be said. Bioware have repeatedly said that they have heard the complaints from fans not knowing what will be said and that they will fix it in the next game.

After ME1 Bioware they would make it better, then ME2 came out exactly the same with the same bad paraphrasing, Bioware then said they heard the problems and would make it better, then ME3 came out and the dialogue wheel was in my opinion worse

of all the games with a dialogue wheel! I found ME1 to be implemented best. Part of the reason for ths was the amount of choices offered in that game. It seems that the dialogue wheel, or a voiced protagonist limts the amount of dialog the game can offer. 

Regardless, we are going to have a voiced orotagonist again, so whatever. I agree with cybant1: bring the lnumbered lines back, display the lines hat will be spoken. RPGs ought to function as a role playing game where players control the development of the PC, not just passive participation in a cinematic experience, which seems to be what Bioware is most focused on achieving at this point,

[Kikidori]

KallianaTabris wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Is the dialogue wheel able to be made so we know what would be said. Bioware have repeatedly said that they have heard the complaints from fans not knowing what will be said and that they will fix it in the next game.

After ME1 Bioware they would make it better, then ME2 came out exactly the same with the same bad paraphrasing, Bioware then said they heard the problems and would make it better, then ME3 came out and the dialogue wheel was in my opinion worse

of all the games with a dialogue wheel! I found ME1 to be implemented best. Part of the reason for ths was the amount of choices offered in that game. It seems that the dialogue wheel, or a voiced protagonist limts the amount of dialog the game can offer. 

Regardless, we are going to have a voiced orotagonist again, so whatever. I agree with cybant1: bring the lnumbered lines back, display the lines hat will be spoken. RPGs ought to function as a role playing game where players control the development of the PC, not just passive participation in a cinematic experience, which seems to be what Bioware is most focused on achieving at this point,

I really really REALLY REALLY  hope they bring the full lines as well as the paraphrase. As the easiest way to implement this is just to use the subtiles already ingame and how them while hovering over each option. Instead of removing the paraphrase and adding a new UI with the lines instead. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

I'd argue you're not role-playing, but writing. A writer has ultimate command over the universe. This includes his own character, the setting, other characters, etc. A role-player has control of one perspective in this grand set piece.

First of all, I don't have ultimate command.  I don't undo any explicit content.  Whatever I see characters say, they said that.  If my character's father says that my character is a skilled warrior, then that's what he said.  But if the game doesn't tell me why he said that, then that motive is available for me to invent.  If the game doesn't tell me (for sure) that my father's statement is correct, then it might not be.

Second, why should the player only control one perspective?  That's not even guaranteed to be true during a tabletop game.  The game master generally controls (and roleplays) a great many characters, and one player can easily control more than one.  Henchmen are the obvious example (not all game masters run games in this way, but some do).  Moreover, even if that is how it works in tabletop games, why does it have to work that way when we take away the other players?  If the single player controls multiple characters, those characters might disagree.  Those characters might argue.  They might even fight.  Even then, the player only gets direct control over the outcome if he metagames, something I don't typically do.

Just because you have access to a wider perspective than either of your characters do, that doesn't force you to allow that wider perspective to inform their decisions.

This is one of the huge advantages in pen and paper, as it always provides an outside force capable of acting/reacting against your character's decision-making. In absence of that, it is the game's responsibility to acknowledge your character's actions, despite providing more limited opportunities resulting in fewer role-playing decisions.

Are you suggesting then that any choice the character makes that is not acknowledged by the game can't occur?

If so, why?  What is the basis for this position?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 janvier 2014 - 04:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You and Avernus, Sylvius. You like him, don't you?

Avernus is my hero.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

I think it's important for the game to be able to acknowledge a fundamental role-playing concept. KotOR lets you play an evil bastard who goes around murdering people. This is a role-playing concept and the game supports it through actions and dialogue.

Since you mentioned KotOR (and KotOR is one of my favourite examples of how a game lets you roleplay within it), how well do you remember the beginning?

Trask runs into the room and tell you what's going on.  If you ask him questions about the ship, and who you are, he'll answer those questions.

Are his answers true?

Does he believe his answers to be true?

I maintain that the game offers us little or no guidance on this.  Trask might be telling us something he has been told, but that isn't true.  Trask believes he's been sharing a bunk with you, but he acknowledged that you've never seen him before because you work opposite shifts.  Given that, has he seen you before?  Maybe he honestly believes that you share a bunk with him, but he's wrong about that.

How do you play that scene?  Do you blindly accept Trask's claims?  Or do you recognise they might be inaccurate, but simply never bother filling in your character's background?  Or do you (as I do) start the game with a firm idea in your mind of what your character's background is, and thus interpret everything else you see with that in mind?  So, if Trask tells me something my character believes to be false, then my character will not accept Trask's claims on that topic.

Going back to DAO, the Human Noble's father says the HN is a skilled warrior.  Is he telling the truth?  Is his option accurate?  To whom is he speaking?  Does he have reason to deceive?  Would we necessarily know if he did?  Does the PC believe his father to be deceptive?

All of these questions go unanswered by the game.  Do you play the whole game with these huge gaps in your knowledge?  Or do you fill them in?  If you believe the PC's father is telling the truth, then you've filled in that gap.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

The example you provide, while valid, doesn't demonstrate the extreme end of the spectrum in which reactions are considered to be predictable.

Why are actions ever considered to be predictable?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

They are no more or less predictable than the real world is predictable, and you insist on believing that by acting in it. 

For example, you type on your computer instead of attacking it with a banana to defeat demons that might be inside of it. Assuming a lot about the real world behaving according to predictable rules.

My perception of the real world appears to behave accoring to predicatble rules.  When I type, characters appear.  Whether I'm affecting the real world by doing this is unknowable, however.

What is "the real world"?

But let's assume, for a moment, that I can perceive the real world.  Things like typing, or walking, or picking up objects are things I can test.  I have tested, tens of thousands of times.  I have a mountain of empirical data on how typing works.

Not so with a person's reaction.  With a person I've never met, I have almost no information at all.  Only with a person I know very well do I know enough to make empirical judgments.

People behave very differently from each other.

Not being able to express thoughts breaks my character, because I designed them to have those thoughts. Saying certain things differently is a 'meh' because I never typically directed my mind to those things. And games with a silent PC like DA:O fail completely in not forcing me to express thoughts I wasn't aware my character had. Like, for example, forcing me to identify myself as a GW. There is no option but to be a GW, in the conversation with Wynne.

there's no option bu to say you're a Grey Warden.  That's a very different thing.  Perhaps you're speaking rhetorically, or simply want to assess her reaction to what you say.

Why would you presuppose that statements made by the PC about his own state of mind are necessarily accurate?

I understand why you deem inaction meaningless, but you're still wrong about that. Not acting is  (a) as informative about character as acting; ( only passive from an external POV, not an internal POV, and © for that reason, being restrainted from acting is the same as being forced to act from an RP perspective.

I simply cannot imagine a character design that would force action.

When you act with a purpose - when you want to achieve something in the game world - then it's all about controlling reactions. It doesn't matter if your theory is wrong; it's like science in that regard. Phlogiston chemistry (by our modern perspective) is not a 'true' theory. It doesn't describe properties of the real world. But it was incredibly useful for making predictions and explaining how certain chemical reactions operated. We made real progress on its back.

I think that supports my position more than yours.  Even if there is no actual responsiveness in the game, that doesn't stop the characters from perceiving responsiveness, and making decisions based on it.

It matters that (a) I can't fine tune my control over people

I've never known this to work in the real world, except over very long periods.

and ( same, identical stimuli cannot lead to different outcomes from the same people. The only explanation that you can offer is that differences that are never shown or discussed must exist that never lead to observable differences, which is a worthless intellectual notion.

When is this ever a problem?  We've talked before about your difficulty accepting identical responses based on differing stimuli, but that's easily explained away (the stimulus/response relationship is itself an observable difference), but I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding differing outcomes.

Moreover, why does it matter if this is a worthless intellectual notion?  This is a reacreational pursuit.  If it makes me happy to believe that there are invisible fairies in my garden, why shouldn't I believe that there are invisible fairies in my garden?

It has no value in-game for the same reason it has no value IRL.

Enjoyment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Because I need to know that the game actually recognizes - and can react to - my character being angry.

How would the NPCs even know that your character is angry?  Your emotions happen inside your brain.  We can't see them.

EntropicAngel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Because I need to know that the game actually recognizes - and can react to - my character being angry. A great example is discussing things with Morrigan about her old life in DA:O. At one point, you can pick "did all the bad touching make you uncomfortable?" as a dialogue line. Morrigan's response to it is blatantly that she can understand "that" sort of touching (men's sexual desire). That's a plain WTF for me, because that's not even close to what I read that line to be, i.e., that handshakes somehow make her uncomfortable, which is funny.

I'll point out that "bad touching" is a fairly common phrase--one Bioware apparently expected their users to be familiar with, but it IS fairly common in the Western (EU+US) world. I'd argue that you misunderstood the line.

I would argue that it doesn't matter.  My interpretation of that scene was that I didn't know how Morrigan interpreted the phrase "bad touching", because I never knew how Morrigan interpreted any phrase.

If there's some basis for reading things into her response, then that same basis should be useful for reading things into the initial dialogue option.  In Exile's difficultly clearly demonstrates that this isn't the case.

At this point, In Exile is making my argument for me.  I should just leave him to it.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I think it's important for the game to be able to acknowledge a fundamental role-playing concept. KotOR lets you play an evil bastard who goes around murdering people. This is a role-playing concept and the game supports it through actions and dialogue.

Since you mentioned KotOR (and KotOR is one of my favourite examples of how a game lets you roleplay within it), how well do you remember the beginning?

Trask runs into the room and tell you what's going on.  If you ask him questions about the ship, and who you are, he'll answer those questions.

Are his answers true?

Does he believe his answers to be true?

I maintain that the game offers us little or no guidance on this.  Trask might be telling us something he has been told, but that isn't true.  Trask believes he's been sharing a bunk with you, but he acknowledged that you've never seen him before because you work opposite shifts.  Given that, has he seen you before?  Maybe he honestly believes that you share a bunk with him, but he's wrong about that.

How do you play that scene?  Do you blindly accept Trask's claims?  Or do you recognise they might be inaccurate, but simply never bother filling in your character's background?  Or do you (as I do) start the game with a firm idea in your mind of what your character's background is, and thus interpret everything else you see with that in mind?  So, if Trask tells me something my character believes to be false, then my character will not accept Trask's claims on that topic.

Going back to DAO, the Human Noble's father says the HN is a skilled warrior.  Is he telling the truth?  Is his option accurate?  To whom is he speaking?  Does he have reason to deceive?  Would we necessarily know if he did?  Does the PC believe his father to be deceptive?

All of these questions go unanswered by the game.  Do you play the whole game with these huge gaps in your knowledge?  Or do you fill them in?  If you believe the PC's father is telling the truth, then you've filled in that gap.

I'll respond to your previous post in a bit, but since we're going the KotOR route, I think you're misunderstanding my issue.

My problem is not you taking positions that might seem unorthodox to your typical player, even though I don't find them as entertaining. Your average player probably isn't going to go out of his way to question Trask Ulgo. But there's nothing wrong with you using that perspective to inform all your decision-making.

Much as in real life, in KotOR you are taking a perspective. And just as you are not required to reveal the reasoning behind your each and every decision, you are not required to reveal to any character at any point that you might mistrust them.

The above I'm okay with. Your character's thoughts are your character's thoughts. It's when you (and Jimmy) bring up the whole point regarding inventing conversations between your characters and npc's that I find foolish, at least with regards to role-playing. If you wish to do it for your own entertainment, there's no harm in it. But this is where you are now writing fanfiction, as opposed to role-playing, since in effect you are deciding how all outcomes play out while simultaneously claiming that the game allows you to play a coward. That the fanfiction you envision might still be consistent with the game you've experienced up until this point and the game you will subsequently experience does not alter that.

It's the same basic distinction how when I explain my tabletop games to people. If I create my PC's background, I don't say "I role-played my character's backstory". I say "I wrote my character's backstory". If you were to have a conversation between you and Alistair, one which obviously the game does not involve, I would say you did not role-play that encounter.

The cowardly PC is a problem because ostensibly at least, an open coward is very obviously not going to be able to handle the multitudes of open combat which the player is exposed to and which is the story Dragon Age is centered on telling. Hence the point that since most other individuals, companions included, will be exposed to this aspect of your character, the world needs to respond to it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 05:04 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

The example you provide, while valid, doesn't demonstrate the extreme end of the spectrum in which reactions are considered to be predictable.

Why are actions ever considered to be predictable?

When walking down the street in broad daylight, if a small child were to approach you and say "hi", since you can't predict their actions, would you assume they are an assassin there to murder you? I suspect most people would respond no to that.

People have a tendency to make predictions about future behavior based on past behavior they have been exposed to. There's nothing wrong with violating that expectation, but it's a huge damper on a believable protagonist in my eyes if I don't have the ability to inquire about said behavior.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First of all, I don't have ultimate command.  I don't undo any explicit content.  Whatever I see characters say, they said that.  If my character's father says that my character is a skilled warrior, then that's what he said.  But if the game doesn't tell me why he said that, then that motive is available for me to invent.  If the game doesn't tell me (for sure) that my father's statement is correct, then it might not be.

Why on Earth do you think this makes a difference? Plenty of fanfiction writers out there design interim content taking place between two separate points in an actual story. I suppose you could argue that you can't undue certain events, but if that's a problem, I'll amend my statement: you have 99% control of the events happening.

Second, why should the player only control one perspective?  That's not even guaranteed to be true during a tabletop game.  The game master generally controls (and roleplays) a great many characters, and one player can easily control more than one. 

And in both cases, you'll note that the gamemaster spends the majority of the experience interacting with you and players the majority of the experience interacting with the gamemaster/each other. In tabletop for example, how often do you spend interacting with your own two characters? It's laughably bad to watch and still involves the player deciding how conclusions pan out.

  Henchmen are the obvious example (not all game masters run games in this way, but some do).  Moreover, even if that is how it works in tabletop games, why does it have to work that way when we take away the other players?

A simple issue of definitions. Are role-playing and writing the same thing? I'd argue they're fundamentally different in conception. In the former, the prime emphasis is how two outside parties react to each other's actions. That doesn't change from tabletop to computers, even if your gamemaster is no longer an actual player.

  If the single player controls multiple characters, those characters might disagree.  Those characters might argue.  They might even fight.  Even then, the player only gets direct control over the outcome if he metagames, something I don't typically do.

Which falls under the domain of writing. You are taking two elements here and have full control over how the encounter plays out in your head. For this to be role-playing, you need an outside element not under your control.  

Are you suggesting then that any choice the character makes that is not acknowledged by the game can't occur?

If so, why?  What is the basis for this position?

Can't occur isn't the right way to put it. If it enhances your game experience, go for it. If you want to  design important conversations in your head and call it role-playing, I'll find that humorous though. It's writing, plain and simple.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 05:17 .

[St. Victorious]

Random point that's past: Blade Runner by Ridley Scott is not the original story. Its a film adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? By Phillip K Dick. By default, all arguments are invalid.

Whining and complaining that voices ruin your head canon is pointless. The game is voiced and uses a dialogue wheel. With enough talent and/or money you can change this or many other factors in the game, go not. Or deal with it. Or don't and play tabletop games and write fanfictions. Your opinions are as such, opinions and people are inclined to disagree with both sides.