197 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Regardless, that's how i feel about it. If the game lets you express it in a distinct and definitive way (like, say, dialog such as "Ferelden will always be my home/this is home now/I don't know"), you're role-playing.

Dialogue is acceptable as a means of expression.

The problem is more if your role-playing efforts are focused entirely around "explaining away" the game's narrative as opposed to role-playing your character concept.

Hence the KotOR example. Want to play an evil character? You have a million opportunities to express that in combat, dialogue, and through your actions. And characters in general show reactivity to it. You don't have to make excuses to make your evil character consistent with the central narrative, the game provides you with those opportunities.

A cowardly npc? Again, I ask the question, who acknowledges it? If the only thing Fastjimmy can point towards in his argument is that he can create conversations with Alistair in his head to make the coward consistent with the rest of the experience, I'd say you have not provided the player with a role-playing experience. Certainly nothing as meaningful as the previous example, where all my encounters do not consist exclusively of headcanon.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 05:29 .

[AlanC9]

Wouldn't it be easier to RP a cowardly character by turning the game off so it doesn't keep getting in the way?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Of course they would.  But I'm questioning why you would assume anything at all about the child.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

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".

You could do either, and I think those two things would be very different activities.

You're writing it if you're consciously deciding how it turns out.  You're roleplaying it if you're only acting from within an in-character perspective.

You can roleplay two characters interacting with each other, but you must do so by making each character's decisions without appealing to any information about the other character that this first character deosn't have.  And then doing that again for the other character.

Roleplaying and writing are very different things, as you say, but you don't need another person around to roleplay.  Having another person around does enforce roleplaying, by denying you that extra-character knowledge.  but just because you, the player, has access to that extra-character knowledge doesn't force you to use it.

Just because you, he player, know how character 2 will react to what character 1 is saying, character 1 doesn't know.  Don't let your knowledge of character 2 override character 1's knowledge of character 2.

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.

That last step is where I don't follow your reasoning.  Yes, they'll see the cowardice.  Why do you think that should force them to react to that cowardice in a way you understand?

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Of course they would.  But I'm questioning why you would assume anything at all about the child.

For the same basic reason that people make assumptions? Because it allows them to live a coherent life.

Toss a stone in the air enough times and people will adopt it as a universal rule that in the presence of a gravitational field, the stone will always fall to the ground. But why is this necessarily the case? Why don't people assume everytime they toss a rock in the air that it won't fly to the ceiling?

This is getting a bit more close to Hume than I'd like, but the point is that we derive some utility from these assumptions. We probably wouldn't be having this conversation if you thought every time you typed on your key board that there was a 50% chance that a demon from hell would spawn and take your soul.

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

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That last step is where I don't follow your reasoning.  Yes, they'll see the cowardice.  Why do you think that should force them to react to that cowardice in a way you understand?

I'm a bit strapped for time, so I'll respond to the first part for now.

But to address your question, because this entire argument began over the ability of the PC to correct what he might perceive to be misunderstandings? Your reasoning here is that because A-->B, I should always accept that as the answer, no question. My reasoning is if A-->B', then my PC should be able to inquire about this. If your argument here is that you have to ignore every time someone remarks on how amazing a fighter you are (and it happens quite a few times, even with the same few pc's), I'd say it's a problem with the role-playing experiencing.

Again, simple basis of activity-reactivity. My group experienced something similar when a friend of mine who was a real-life scientist decided to make a completely stupid character, who would occasionally have bursts of scientific insight, which led to a few humorous moments. The latter example enhances role-playing, while the former results in the player writing in their personal explanation.

As Alan points out, the central problem here begins with someone thinking the game enhances these opportunities. If I were at the point where you suggest and wanted to force a cowardly NPC into the narrative, I'd simply turn off the game and open up Microsoft Word, where I won't have to deal with explaining away all of the game's restrictions.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You can roleplay two characters interacting with each other, but you must do so by making each character's decisions without appealing to any information about the other character that this first character deosn't have.  And then doing that again for the other character.

But how does the writer not do this? In this regard, the rule you just outlined applies as much to writing as it does to role-playing. Just because the writer sets the outcome does not mean that when decision-making occurs, the characters are making use of information outside their control. In this regard, making believable characters simply means not giving your audience the impression that the characters themselves are metagaming the fact that they're in a story.

The writer is doing this exact thing when he says to himself "How would character X respond to this stimulus?", hence why it's not the relevant distinction.

Roleplaying and writing are very different things, as you say, but you don't need another person around to roleplay.  Having another person around does enforce roleplaying, by denying you that extra-character knowledge.  but just because you, the player, has access to that extra-character knowledge doesn't force you to use it.

The problem isn't the extra-character information, as it relates to your PC's decision-making. When controlling multiple characters, I can set the stipulation not to make use of information my character doesn't have. The rules of metagaming apply to writing as much as role-playing.

The distinction is made in the ability to determine outcomes.

To put it another way, if my character punches a character I don't control, I can't know the end result of that encounter until it plays out. Maybe the character punches me back, maybe he tries to talk out our troubles. It's this responding to external stimulus which allows for role-playing.

Just because you, he player, know how character 2 will react to what character 1 is saying, character 1 doesn't know.  Don't let your knowledge of character 2 override character 1's knowledge of character 2.

This isn't the relevant distinction though. As above, the problem lies in the player's/writer's knowledge of outcomes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2014 - 04:32 .

[archav3n]

I don't mind the dialogue system in Origins. But again it's true, the voice actor/actress is repeating the same lines that you have read/preview it beforehand. It would be nice if they can summarize the intention of each dialogue and the PC actor/actress will then read the real conversation/dialogue which accurately defined in the summary options we have selected. Also more options required not just the 3 good, neutral, bad. It makes the game feel cheap to me.

[CybAnt1]

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

Ok. But is this a question of knowledge or experience? I can know my character is giving an angry response if the text option is:

1. [Angry] "... say this to Morrigan"

We all agree to communicate tone, you can use brackets in a tree, without a wheel device. 

If I have to have the full cinematic experience, well, sure then I need to see and hear the anger. 

But, and again, this is my main problem with DA2, there were a lot of encounters where it made little sense to give an angry response, yet the wheel always seems to offer angry-diplomatic-funny. 

I quickly figured out if I wanted to console companions, the "diplomatic" response was best, but to my odd mind, I don't view being compassionate and consoling as being "diplomatic". It's not like I'm trying to prevent a war by showing I care about their feelings. 

Okay, that's ridiculous, because no RPG lets you express "sadness" or "surprise" or "bewilderment". Very rarely can you express fear or regret, and DA:O doesn't really let you express fear. 

Silent PCs barely have one emotion, which is neutral stoic (if that counts). 

Come on. Have you really played Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape Torment? Hell, there even were some in the Neverwinter Nights SP campaigns. 

It's true in previous games you may not have always seen and heard your character express those emotions, but you certainly felt it from reading the dialogue and getting the embedded emotion. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 06 janvier 2014 - 12:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

This isn't the relevant distinction though. As above, the problem lies in the player's/writer's knowledge of outcomes.

First, I would argue that the player doesn't necessarily know the outcomes, at least not until he's done the second character's mental arithmetic.

Second, as long as the player doesn't take the knowledge of that outcome into account when making the first character's decision, the player's possession of that knowledge makes no material difference.  Why should we care about something that has no discernable consequences?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Okay, that's ridiculous, because no RPG lets you express "sadness" or "surprise" or "bewilderment". Very rarely can you express fear or regret, and DA:O doesn't really let you express fear. 

Silent PCs barely have one emotion, which is neutral stoic (if that counts).

Having emotion and expressing emotion are two very different things.

With both silent and voiced PCs, the PC can have any emotion the player wants as long as the player believes that emotional state is consistent with the explicit behaviour of the PC within the game.

Since a silent PC only ever says things, and never expresses emotion, a much broader range or emotions is possible.

A voiced and acted PC is limited to a narrower range of emotional states, because we see that PC express emotion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

For the same basic reason that people make assumptions? Because it allows them to live a coherent life.

Toss a stone in the air enough times and people will adopt it as a universal rule that in the presence of a gravitational field, the stone will always fall to the ground. But why is this necessarily the case? Why don't people assume everytime they toss a rock in the air that it won't fly to the ceiling?

You're assuming an excluded middle.  That we don't assume the stone will fall doesn't require that we assume the stone won't fall.

But with the stone, we can test that behaviour.  We haven't had nearly as many opportunities to test the behaviour of this specific child (or even children generally).

This is getting a bit more close to Hume than I'd like, but the point is that we derive some utility from these assumptions. We probably wouldn't be having this conversation if you thought every time you typed on your key board that there was a 50% chance that a demon from hell would spawn and take your soul.

I couldn't possibly justify that 50% number.

I'm not even convinced my keyboard exists.

[Feline Jaye]

Surely Bioware will be smart enough to have the full line of dialogue - that had to be the most complained thing about their dialogue wheels. They tried to fix the ME wheel with DA2's icons and people where still complaining (which was fair enough - I got my far share of "I wanted to be angry - not be a ****" moments). Having the full line seems like the next step.

If it's about cluttering the screen, here's an idea - the line of dialogue next to the wheel has a character limit. Say the line is "I don't know who you think you are, but you just messed with the wrong person." Now clearly this would be unweildy to place on the screen (especially if there were six of these). So instead of that, all the lines are shortened to something like "I don't know who you..." so that it's all more aesthetically pleasing. But when you hover over an option, the full line of dialogue expands out (aka. "I don't know who you..." becomes "I don't know who you think you are, but you just messed with the wrong person.") Unsure how well I explained that, but it could easily work. Only some minor programming to get the dialogue to do something like that, too.

Mostly my hope is that we get more options or a wider variety. I loved using my skills (like Cunning, Herbalism, Poisons, Trapping) in dialogue in DA:O. I loved the variety of personality beyond "Kind, Inquisitive, Aggressive". Perhaps they could just branch the dialogue wheel more? Have, say, several standard options, then have an option that just says "[Use Skill]" and it opens a dialogue wheel menu that lists whatever skill you can use at that time.

Which actually brings me to my next point. Having my devout, diplomatic Hawke crudely hit on Sebastian was cringeworthy. So maybe, like with the Skills Choice idea just above, there could be a "[Flirt]" option which opens up a new dialogue wheel of two or three kinds of flirts to use? Whenever flirting or a LI option is available, anyway (not just, all the time).


Oh! Though probably my biggest annoyance with the dialogue wheel was how it locked me into being a heroic hero. I get the hassle of programming so many different paths and what not, but half the fun of morality games to to have that totally-off-the-deep-end, vile dark PC. While I had fun with mean and brash characters who didn't actually want to save the world (but would kill the Archdemon to save their own arse) I couldn't actually have my sadistic Blood Mage in DA2.

So! If Bioware is going to be tweaking what options and how many, please have a more evil option in there. It's not just what you do, but why you do it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why are actions ever considered to be predictable?

Empirical evidence. I flip the light switch 1,000 times, it comes on 1,000 times. And the times when it DOESN'T, it can be tracked to some flaw that prevented it from happening.

But, empirical data. That can be considered predictable. Not gauranteed, of course--but predictable.

Right, but I can't test people in this way.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why are actions ever considered to be predictable?

Empirical evidence. I flip the light switch 1,000 times, it comes on 1,000 times. And the times when it DOESN'T, it can be tracked to some flaw that prevented it from happening.

But, empirical data. That can be considered predictable. Not gauranteed, of course--but predictable.

Right, but I can't test people in this way.

This is a reply from my phone (Ill answer thread highlights tonight) so it'll have to be short, but yes you can. Part of the answer is found in the social context that gives us a basic set of shared assumptions about behaviours and modes to behave appropriately and beyond that it's experience - both with learning how people behave and how this particular person behaves. 

Individuals are bounded, so its very possible - and often not difficult - to predict their actions. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

My concern is that I can't control enough variables in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

[Ridwan]

No dialogue wheel! Just NO!

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My concern is that I can't control enough variables in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

Observe the variables. Your location. The background movement. What the current situation is (we're still talking about predicting a person's response, correct?).

You may not be able to control them, but you can note and cross-reference them to arrive at meaningful conclusions.

But who has the time for all of that?

I just do what Bioware has taught me - Paragon options every time. And always perform the quick time events - at the worst, all you do is punch someone in the face. That never comes back to bite you anyway.