205 réponses à ce sujet

[Rane7685]

To answer the topic question bluntly.. The reason you cant play a human commoner is the same reason you cant play as a dragon or a nug or for a less extreme example a tevinter magister or a Rivani pirate. Thats simply not how the story was structured. There is a story the writers have to write and the options cant be limitless

[Darth Death]

It'd be a tall order to have a commoner founded the inquisition. 

[Maria Caliban]

What I'm most interested in is the qunari background as we haven't seen Vossith and how they fit in to society previously. I can't imagine they're harassed as much as city elves are.

[Heimdall]

What I'm most interested in is the qunari background as we haven't seen Vossith and how they fit in to society previously. I can't imagine they're harassed as much as city elves are.

No, but I imagine they're shunned and seen as alien, especially since they're probably assumed to be bandits, mercenaries, or Qunari agents most of the time. And unlike the city elves, they aren't numerous enough (Or have the gender balance) to establish their own communities to take refuge in.

[Fearsome1]

The Dragon Age: Origins content that got axed during development that I wish had remained part of that game, was the barbarian origin that had been planned. I also still really wish that Velanna had made the cut into DA2, rather than Anders. It's funny, by and large I always preferred my non-human Wardens over the human ones.

[Wulfram]

I don't believe the surface dwarf PC could be considered disadvantaged.

As I understand it, members of prosperous merchant clans might not be nobility, but they live better than commoners. They will own businesses and capital, and could afford to keep servants in their house.
 

 

Wealthy merchants are still commoners, as a rule.  Though the fact that Varric's family had noble status in Orzammar probably keeps them from being truly considered commoners on the surface.

[NUM13ER]

I'd rather have neither of those things. Both origin stories and the PC voice restrict my ability to design my character. I would much rather have an undefined mysterious stranger PC with no voice acting.

I guess that's just personal preference at the end of the day. After experiencing voice acting in a series, I would be very unhappy to go back to a silent protagonist.

I also prefer having some character definition (ie. having a background and voice) to shape into something more personal. I've never had a problem with the characters not being completely defined by me.

Videogame RPG's aren't like tabletops RPG's. They have inherent limitations that the imagination does not. There's only so many resources in the real world and IMO the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to the likes of voice acting.

[Herr Uhl]

What I'm most interested in is the qunari background as we haven't seen Vossith and how they fit in to society previously. I can't imagine they're harassed as much as city elves are.

I imagine that Vashoth live outside of human society, more similar to the Dalish than City Elves. Most people would probably assume that they were bandits or mercenaries rather than how they'd view a city elf. Fear rather than seeing them as inferior.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Videogame RPG's aren't like tabletops RPG's.

They used to be.

They have inherent limitations that the imagination does not. There's only so many resources in the real world and IMO the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to the likes of voice acting.

Yes, a tabletop GM has the ability to adapt on the fly, and designing the whole game in advance to cope with anything the player might do would be vastly more work.

But that's why a CRPG is designed by dozens of people over a period of years, as opposed to a tabletop adventure which is designed by one guy in his spare time over the course of a week.

[Mirrman70]

They used to be.
Yes, a tabletop GM has the ability to adapt on the fly, and designing the whole game in advance to cope with anything the player might do would be vastly more work.

But that's why a CRPG is designed by dozens of people over a period of years, as opposed to a tabletop adventure which is designed by one guy in his spare time over the course of a week.

 

but Dragon Age can no longer be accurately defined as a CRPG. While some aspects are being returned from DA:O it seems to me that gameplay in Inquisition is just a slower more tactical version of DA2.

 

 

Those sorts of details should not be. The player needs to be allowed to decide what sort of charscter he's playing.

Any restrictions along these lines would need to be clearly described and provided to the player before the game starts, and since these games no longer come with detailed manuals, there's simply no way to do that.

 

 

Its just part of the background. Like Systemlord said maybe he changes his mind once he becomes inquisitor. or maybe his family wasn't very influential so maybe all he was leaving was a simple upper-middle class lifestyle. We don't have the full details yet on the back-stories of the inquisitors so I don't think we should be getting so riled up about it right now.

[Giantdeathrobot]

You can be a surface dwarf, a Vashot or a dalish. They likely don't have any authority by default to lead the Inquisition. Not of mention we don't know how much big and powerful the Trevelyan are.

 

Yeah, but all these people can conceivably have education and martial training within their society, which is paramount to being an inquisitor. A farmboy will have none of these.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Its just part of the background. Like Systemlord said maybe he changes his mind once he becomes inquisitor. or maybe his family wasn't very influential so maybe all he was leaving was a simple upper-middle class lifestyle. We don't have the full details yet on the back-stories of the inquisitors so I don't think we should be getting so riled up about it right now.

When the origins were announced for DAO (that there were some, not the specifics), I objected strongly on the grounds that a blank slate PC (likein NWN) offers the player greater roleplaying freedom. And it turned out I was right.

Having 6 pre-written backgrounds is a lot better than having 1, but having the freedom to write your own background is vastly better.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad: I disagree that they ever really were.  Unless you played your table top strictly mathematically (and some do).

 

A computer could never possibly be as free form as table top.  Computer RPGs are inferior in every way except for friend count which comes in nice when I feel like playing RPGs are 2 A.M. or something.

[WidePaul]

I'm just glad to have race options back again to be honest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

@Sylvius the Mad: I disagree that they ever really were. Unless you played your table top strictly mathematically (and some do).

With regard to the implementation of the rules? Absolutely.

A computer could never possibly be as free form as table top.

Not as free form, but that's the wrong standard. They should be designed to be as free form as possible, however, and not simply give up that aspect of the game just because it can't be perfect.

Computer RPGs are inferior in every way except for friend count which comes in nice when I feel like playing RPGs are 2 A.M. or something.

That they are single-player makes them superior almost regardless of ttheir other characteristics, I would say.

Tabletop gaming is multi-player. Multi-player is bad.

[In Exile]

When the origins were announced for DAO (that there were some, not the specifics), I objected strongly on the grounds that a blank slate PC (likein NWN) offers the player greater roleplaying freedom. And it turned out I was right.

Having 6 pre-written backgrounds is a lot better than having 1, but having the freedom to write your own background is vastly better.

I disagree. The game won't react to you under an MS approach, which is a serious disadvantage if you value that aspect of the game. So at best, your position is that a blank slate is preferable for your approach to RPGs. 

 

Yes, a tabletop GM has the ability to adapt on the fly, and designing the whole game in advance to cope with anything the player might do would be vastly more work.

But that's why a CRPG is designed by dozens of people over a period of years, as opposed to a tabletop adventure which is designed by one guy in his spare time over the course of a week.

 

A GM is working in a dynamic environment with the players. There's less of a need to invent a detailed plot in advance since it is pointless to try and anticipate player actions, when it is much cheaper to just react to them. CRPG developers have to anticipate actions years in advance. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

 

So, it has been confirmed that whatever the class of choice, a human Inquisitor will be a noble (ironically, it was around the anniversary of the takeover of the Bastille in Paris). Why don't we ever have the chance of playing as a commoner? The scrapped human commoner origin from DA:O is still my biggest regret from that game. So far, the only human character we can play are nobles of some sort (Couslands, Hawkes/Amells, Trevelyans) while I think that rising to power from a condition of minor importance would make for a much cooler game - apart from the fact that nobles are usually arrogant and irksome.

 

But you were a filthy peasant in DA2. Hawke's family were nobles in the past but not at the time DA2 is set so yes, he/she technically does count as a filthy peasant and even after Act I, he/she is still a commoner, just a very rich one who has brought back his/her family estate.

 

Having a commoner Inquisitor is the same. He/she would have the same background as Hawke (a filthy peasant from a village) as well as the same story which would be arising to power, fame and money (albeit in a one day as opposed to the seven years of Hawke). The only difference then would be that Hawke's lineage is noble, however, he/she is still a commoner born and bred.

[In Exile]

 

 

 

But you were a filthy peasant in DA2. Hawke's family were nobles in the past but not at the time DA2 is set so yes, he/she technically does count as a filthy peasant and even after Act I, he/she is still a commoner, just a very rich one who has brought back his/her family estate.

 

Having a commoner Inquisitor is the same. He/she would have the same background as Hawke (a filthy peasant from a village) as well as the same story which would be arising to power, fame and money (albeit in a one day as opposed to the seven years of Hawke). The only difference then would be that Hawke's lineage is noble, however, he/she is still a commoner born and bred.

 

Aveline calls you out twice for just enjoying your wealth and not getting a noble title, so you're definitely not a noble.

[Wulfram]

You don't need a title to be a noble.

 

edit:  Well, it depends on where you are.  But the Amells were nobility (Leandra says so), and they don't appear to have a title.  And if they did have a title, it would be Leandra's and then Hawke's anyway.

[Mirrman70]

When the origins were announced for DAO (that there were some, not the specifics), I objected strongly on the grounds that a blank slate PC (likein NWN) offers the player greater roleplaying freedom. And it turned out I was right.

Having 6 pre-written backgrounds is a lot better than having 1, but having the freedom to write your own background is vastly better.

 

but how would a game implement this? just never bring up the characters past? never explain why they have certain skill sets? I like things to make sense more than I like "roleplaying freedom".  I want my character to have a back-story and I understand that the ability to create your own back-story in the game is very dificult to put into the game. I would rather I have a few back-stories to chose from than some blank slate "let's not talk about the past" character that forces me to come up with some kind of possibly contradictory head canon.

 

p.s. I despise head canon.

[In Exile]

You don't need a title to be a noble.

 

edit:  Well, it depends on where you are.  But the Amells were nobility (Leandra says so), and they don't appear to have a title.  And if they did have a title, it would be Leandra's and then Hawke's anyway.

 

DA2 seems to act as if the Amells are somehow disgraced post Leandra's leaving, so much so that they're not really even considered nobles anymore. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad:  So, people aren't your favorite - CRPGs are a definite plus for you, but they'll always be inferior to table, or at least what I expect of an RPG.

 

------

 

That being said - it really doesn't matter where the protagonist came from.  Especially if they're going to completely throw out their innovative design of "Origins" to save production time.

 

In nearly every CRPG - they're headed to become King of Awesometopia because that's what gamers seem to want/need.

 

Hawke was a commoner and despite being totally overshadowed in his own narrative... he could still level hundreds of people.

 

There's no point to the commoner trait in a CRPG except to perhaps fulfill some accomplishment headcanon that you turned your character with some supposed crappy past into King of Awsometopia. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

but how would a game implement this? just never bring up the characters past? never explain why they have certain skill sets? I like things to make sense more than I like "roleplaying freedom". I want my character to have a back-story and I understand that the ability to create your own back-story in the game is very dificult to put into the game. I would rather I have a few back-stories to chose from than some blank slate "let's not talk about the past" character that forces me to come up with some kind of possibly contradictory head canon.

Just like NWN (and KotOR before the twist) did. Don't talk about it, because it's not relevant to any of the NPCs.

p.s. I despise head canon.

All roleplaying is head canon. Even in tabletop games, your character's thoughts and motives and objectives exist only in your head.

[Mirrman70]

Just like NWN (and KotOR before the twist) did. Don't talk about it, because it's not relevant to any of the NPCs.
All roleplaying is head canon. Even in tabletop games, your character's thoughts and motives and objectives exist only in your head.

 

you can't really use Kotor as an example because your character had been given false memories to hide the fact that he used to be the Big Bad.

 

And how is it not relevant in a game where you are trying to raise a massive army to combat a demonic threat. I at least would need a little bit more of a valid reason than a "glowy hand that closes portals". Military training, is the individual a well trained mage or a hedge mage (which has been revealed to be very bad at anything other exploding ****). Why the hell is the person at a peace conference? the only peasants that were there the last time we were there were dragon cultists.

 

A background even a vague one can be more of use to me in building my character than a blank slate.

[MrMrPendragon]

I think someone said somewhere that a user in the forums will eventually ask to be a commoner after that "human noble inquisitor" got announced.

 

Why can't you play a commoner? Simply put, because you just can't

 

And that's the bottom liiiine because Bioware said so.