35 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

We may have such opportunities when dealing with the Orlesian Court.  I have no doubt that the "Game" will come into play somehow.

[Puppy Love]

I like dialogue where it's more obvious how we're saying something.  Have had funny instances with taking dialogue wrong.  Like first meeting Leliana.

 

"The makers on my side!  Welcome aboard!" was so over the top looking I though my character was clearly being sarcastic.  Then everyone treats me as if I was dead serious and a basket case.  I'm like, what?  You honestly think I believe that?

[In Exile]

I'm playing a Dwarven Noble (for the first time) in DA O, and I'm trying to play him as a version of Vetinari (readers of the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett will know the name)--a slightly-benevolent-ruler-and-master-of-manipulation. However, I'm quite disappointed by the very few manipulative options. I would love more options to manipulate people in various ways.

 

I'm trying to think of an example but you don't see it often in games. Here's one, how about if I'd been able to manipulate Bhelen to move against Trian. Or something like that--manipulate characters into doing things while you sit back like an innocent party.

 

 

I recognize this is far, far too late, but it's still something I would love implemented down the road, in some fashion.

 

Manipulation requires active agency, instead of passive decision making, and Bioware stories (in fact, RPG stories in general) are very hostile to player agency as active vs. passive or reactive. Bioware protagonists are characters for whom the story happens to and so manipulation is effectively denied to them. 

[Jazzpha]

Manipulation requires active agency, instead of passive decision making, and Bioware stories (in fact, RPG stories in general) are very hostile to player agency as active vs. passive or reactive. Bioware protagonists are characters for whom the story happens to and so manipulation is effectively denied to them. 

 

But I do agree that manipulation in dialogue pretty much went the way of the Dodo in DA2 with the loss of Coercion from DAO. Master Coercion allowed you access to a wealth of dialogue choices inaccessible otherwise, and a lot of them were hilarious, awesome and awesomely hilarious.

 

I'd love to see that make a return in DAI, in whatever form the dialogue wheel can accommodate. I miss convincing people of my intellectual and ideological superiority in-game; that was a lot of fun.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

Eh, I played a manipulative bastard anyway, playing my companions off against each other so they all liked me despite despising each other, especially in Awakenings where I think my Warden didn't ever say their actual opinion once.  But that requires a lot of extra work on the player's part - it'd be nice to see the developers meet us halfway, yes.  

[TheEternalStudent]

I've done literally the exact same thing Dwarven Noble based on Vetinari, getting people to do what's best for the world, whether they want to or not.

[Fialka]

But I do agree that manipulation in dialogue pretty much went the way of the Dodo in DA2 with the loss of Coercion from DAO. Master Coercion allowed you access to a wealth of dialogue choices inaccessible otherwise, and a lot of them were hilarious, awesome and awesomely hilarious.
 
I'd love to see that make a return in DAI, in whatever form the dialogue wheel can accommodate. I miss convincing people of my intellectual and ideological superiority in-game; that was a lot of fun.

Absolutely agree. My favorite DAO protagonist was a benevolent manipulator, and I really missed having that option in DA2. Though I suppose you could 'charm' people by playing snarky Hawke or 'threaten' people with aggressive Hawke, it wasn't the same. I think because neither of those came across as intellectually or ideologically superior. And the dialogue that would 'fit' whatever personality you chose seemed pretty limited. Hopefully the more neutral dialogue options will give us more to work with - but I'd especially love it if coercion as a skill made a comeback. It would be nice to play an intelligent hero - something I never felt Hawke could be.
 

I've done literally the exact same thing Dwarven Noble based on Vetinari, getting people to do what's best for the world, whether they want to or not.

I don't know who or what Vetinari is, but the bolded part, exactly! 

[Gannayev of Dreams]

I would love more manipulative dialogue as well.  "Persuade" is really the best we get in DA:O.  DA2 it wasn't really present at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Manipulation requires active agency, instead of passive decision making, and Bioware stories (in fact, RPG stories in general) are very hostile to player agency as active vs. passive or reactive. Bioware protagonists are characters for whom the story happens to and so manipulation is effectively denied to them.

You can be an active agent in the emergent narrative, but you are correct about the authored narrative.

Personally, I think this is a good feature. It limits the need of the writers to determine the PC's personality.

[In Exile]

You can be an active agent in the emergent narrative, but you are correct about the authored narrative.

Personally, I think this is a good feature. It limits the need of the writers to determine the PC's personality.

 

Having seen a variety of implementations, I think the best approach is to simply limit the possible options of the protagonist from the start. DA2 suffers because our options are limited without justification (DA:O often does this too, but more people seem to accept the role that would justify inaction than I do). 

 

Contrast it with, say, BG2, which gives you an absolutely perfect personal reason to go after Irenicus regardless of alignment/goal/ambition, etc. 

[Wulfram]

Contrast it with, say, BG2, which gives you an absolutely perfect personal reason to go after Irenicus regardless of alignment/goal/ambition, etc. 

 

Not really.  It gives you two possible reasons (Imoen or "power"), but I don't think either are universal

[Sylvius the Mad]

Having seen a variety of implementations, I think the best approach is to simply limit the possible options of the protagonist from the start. DA2 suffers because our options are limited without justification (DA:O often does this too, but more people seem to accept the role that would justify inaction than I do).

Contrast it with, say, BG2, which gives you an absolutely perfect personal reason to go after Irenicus regardless of alignment/goal/ambition, etc.

I'll certainly agree that any limitations need to be presented up front, but I would like to minimize them.

[PsychoBlonde]

I'll certainly agree that any limitations need to be presented up front, but I would like to minimize them.

Minimizing or eliminating restrictions on the protagonist tends to make them a nonentity, though.  I even put limitations on my players in pen and paper games because I got so effing tired of always having one player who did this:

 

1.  I don't care about this (even if "this" is "I am going to die instantaneously").  I'm just going over here.

2.  I don't care about the other PC's and I refuse to interact or cooperate with them in any way.

3.  What?  No, I'm not sabotaging the game, I'm "just" playing my character.

 

Yeah, no.  That's why I always start my games with this disclaimer:

1.  You WILL make a character who has a reason to get involved with the plot.  They can resist it, complain about it, whatever you like.  But they WILL choose to get involved in SOME capacity.
2.  You WILL make a character who has a reason to cooperate with the other PC's.  I don't care if they make a lot of NOISE about how they don't want to cooperate as long as you always finagle a way for them to cooperate in the end.  That's fine.  That's good role-playing.

3.  Or, you WILL join someone else's game.

If the only thing that will get you to actually join in this GROUP ACTIVITY is "you have a cortex bomb that will go off if you don't stop acting like an obstructionist douchebag", forget you.  Go play with someone else.

That's pen and paper, though.  I have no problem if people want to play like that in single-player games, but they need to accept that the result will be "game over, you died".

One option is to have limitations that are based on things that could have always happened AFTER whatever headcanon the player is running.  "Okay, so you're role-playing as a person who was summoned across the dimensions to be the Perfect Adventurer.  Fine.  So we'll leave out any references to your birth, family, and friendships.  BUT that doesn't mean that you couldn't have attended the Fighter Academy."  Focus less on unchosen stuff like "you were born at" or "here's your bestest friend!" and more on things that don't necessarily interfere with other choices like "you went to school here" or "you got a job here" or "you got shanghai'd aboard this ship" or "someone appeared out of nowhere and gave you this box then ran off".

 

The trouble with manipulative options per se is that to be *properly* manipulative you have to have a *specific goal*.  "Lie and see what happens" is not a goal.  The longer-range the goal, the better, because this allows for more possible ways of getting there. You can't really be manipulative if the story (like DA2) is structured in such a way that things happen when they happen.  You literally, CANNOT do anything about the Tome of Koslun until the end of Act 2.  Even though you KNOW about "The Artifact" quite early in the game, you can't make ANY active effort to go look for it until Izzy basically locates it on her own.  Origins at least was more open-ended in this regard.  You  had a SPECIFIC long-term goal (defeat the Archdemon).   You still had few options as to "how" to get there, though.  The Landsmeet happened when it happened.

[In Exile]

Not really.  It gives you two possible reasons (Imoen or "power"), but I don't think either are universal

 

You don't think Irenicus' imprisonment of the PC is justification enough to hunt him down and gut him? Because it seems to be that this is the evil alignment default response. 

[PsychoBlonde]

You don't think Irenicus' imprisonment of the PC is justification enough to hunt him down and gut him? Because it seems to be that this is the evil alignment default response. 

You would think so, but from my personal experience PC apathy knows no bounds.

[Wulfram]

You can tell Anora that you're going to support her, then get yourself crowned as Queen, that's kind of fun.  And the whole working for both sides plot in Orzammar, though I feel like that's kind of undermined by the crown just resolving everything at the end.

 

You don't think Irenicus' imprisonment of the PC is justification enough to hunt him down and gut him? Because it seems to be that this is the evil alignment default response. 

 

For some characters.  Other characters it seems like a good reason to get away.

[PsychoBlonde]

You can tell Anora that you're going to support her, then get yourself crowned as Queen, that's kind of fun.  And the whole working for both sides plot in Orzammar, though I feel like that's kind of undermined by the crown just resolving everything at the end.

 

I still think it would have been funnier if you could have nominated a "dark horse" candidate out of the blue--turns out you've been undermining support for both Bhelen and Harrowmont this entire time.

[EndlessForms]

You can tell Anora that you're going to support her, then get yourself crowned as Queen, that's kind of fun.  And the whole working for both sides plot in Orzammar, though I feel like that's kind of undermined by the crown just resolving everything at the end.

 

 

For some characters.  Other characters it seems like a good reason to get away.

 

Never tried the lie/crown yourself route, sounds fun!

 

Some characters, such as True Neutrals, would just continue on wherever their whims took them, too. 

[Ryzaki]

You don't think Irenicus' imprisonment of the PC is justification enough to hunt him down and gut him? Because it seems to be that this is the evil alignment default response. 

 

True but you can pick the "eh Imoen can die in a fire" type choices and the plot still goes "YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRENCIOUS." so it's still a forced path just one with more variations than usual.

[In Exile]

For some characters.  Other characters it seems like a good reason to get away.

But the kind of characters who would run away just break the plot. No matter how much headcannon players want to engage in, RPGs straight up do not support cowardly characters. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

You don't think Irenicus' imprisonment of the PC is justification enough to hunt him down and gut him? Because it seems to be that this is the evil alignment default response.

Not all people direct their energy outward.

I don't think it's hard to justify that action given the circumstances, but I can imagine characters for whom that would be a problem.

Especially since the character would have been crafted for the earlier game. Direct sequels that reuse the protagonist have a huge problem to overcome in this respect.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But the kind of characters who would run away just break the plot. No matter how much headcannon players want to engage in, RPGs straight up do not support cowardly characters.

DAO did.

[blackdeath]

Yes yes The Force is strong with this one you will chase the Nug I will chase the Nug Excellent lol that would be awesome