572 réponses à ce sujet

[Keroko]

Yes, they were so wrong that the DA sequel that included a voiced character sold half as much as the original game without one. Or the space RPG with a voiced character which didn't sell as much as DA:O until it's third game. Meanwhile the highest selling RPG of all time comes out afterwards to the tune of 20 million copies with a silent main character.

They really paid attention to the right lessons to get more players, that's for sure.

 

And as I said earlier, the argument that voiced protagonists or a lack thereof impacts sales is a ridiculous one. The lesson they learned was that their players -the people who bought the game and were already 'their players' so to speak- didn't feel like they could really connect to their people without a voice.

 

And while we can list many, many things about DAII that were bad, the voice acting was one of its highlights almost all around the board.

 

 

I would challenges anyone in this thread to go back and play DA:O with a unique character concept. To play someone who isn't just a mirror of you or some other generic hero to save the day, but has motives, emotions and feelings that are more complex. It's a great (though far from perfect) vessel to do so.

 

I can and did. I also did so with DAII, and will do so again with Inquisition. Voiced protagonists don't put a lock on playing a character with a unique concept.

[Hobbes]

I have to disagree, I rather like the voice acting.  The thing for me that kills it is that dialogue wheel, it sort of limits you and doesn't give you as much freedom as you had when it was the text in the box.  There were more options and it didn't feel as though you were limited to three emotions/reactions.  I'd love for them to do something similar to what was done with the DLC "Lelianas Song".

 

It seems though as if they may have improved on this from the last game, I suppose we will see how it pans out.  I just hope it feels more like I'm playing my own character and not like in DA2 where it felt like I was just guiding Hawke.

[AlanC9]

Well, I'm trying not to argue that a RPG should have role playing elements. I'm trying to stick to "if I were to try and role play, it would be difficult." I get that RPG has been diluted as a definiton, but I can't imagine role playing ITSELF has.

Apparently it has, since In Exile's using a different definition.

But my point was that it doesn't matter. Nobody's arguing that your playstyle isn't harmed, whether we call it role-playing or not.

[Muspade]

Voice acting sure didn't hinder Mass Effect...

[RobRam10]

After hearing the angelic voice of Jon Curry why wouldn't you want the PC to be voiced?!

[In Exile]

Well, I'm trying not to argue that a RPG should have role playing elements. I'm trying to stick to "if I were to try and role play, it would be difficult." I get that RPG has been diluted as a definiton, but I can't imagine role playing ITSELF has.

 

"Role playing" as a hobby activity isn't the same thing as "playing a role" in some general sense. Acting involves a combination of things - direction from the director, a pre-written script, etc. Someone who plays the role doesn't right it, generally receives a fair amount of direction in pulling it off. 

 

The analogies to acting fall apart because the exact thing you say VO does - force you to have a specific tone and intention - is something that always happens in acting. That's what the writers and directors exist to do. Sure, sometimes an actor will go off the reservation and make their own lines up, but that's pretty rare, and we all recognize it as the actor usurping the role of the director and writer. 

 

I also don't understand what you mean by "If I were to try and play a role it would be difficult". Do you mean, VO makes it difficult for you to play a role?

 

I may be being obtuse, but you are taking one aspect of narrative, the fact that characters usually have to interact with others or the world, and saying that's role playing. Its not - its part of narrative. Role playing is actively playing the character in that narrative. 

 

I'm talking about what the actual activity is vis-a-vis playing games. Actors have written their own roles, mimed their way through a scene with no direction, and used it all as a platform to show off their range. That's really not something that has anything to do with playing a CRPG.

 

Let me try and put it this way: on your standard, a daydream is roleplaying. This is because you can craft an elaborate mental fantasy, and then simulate out reactions to it. Now, if you want to say all roleplaying is just like daydream and videogames are only RPGs when they mimic that, fair enough. I disagree, but at least we're clear on your position. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Voice acting sure didn't hinder Mass Effect...

Didn't hinder it from what? Playing as a loyal, battle-hardened space marine that everyone looks to as a natural leader?

I'm not trying to knock Mass Effect, but Shephard is a pretty defined character when you first get them. Not as much as, say, Geralt, but I don't really view it as being able to make my own charter... only able to guide Shephard. I understand others feel differently and I did enjoy Mass Effect for its story and its choice and consequence, but the character itself was fairly established. That limits your roleplaying to just that character, with different expressions or choices within it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Actors can improvise lines. It's quite a common act. They can act without immediate direction, like in nearly every theater live show. An actor can do Shakespeare, lines that have been done a million times over the centuries, and breathe new life in them with different inflection, tone and emphasis.

Daydreaming could be roleplaying. What makes it a roleplaying game is the same thing that makes anything a game - rules, guidelines and constrictions.

[Lady Luminous]

Didn't hinder it from what? Playing as a loyal, battle-hardened space marine that everyone looks to as a natural leader?

I'm not trying to knock Mass Effect, but Shephard is a pretty defined character when you first get them. Not as much as, say, Geralt, but I don't really view it as being able to make my own charter... only able to guide Shephard. I understand others feel differently and I did enjoy Mass Effect for its story and its choice and consequence, but the character itself was fairly established. That limits your roleplaying to just that character, with different expressions or choices within it.

 

If I can just step in here, I'm one of the people who enjoyed VA in ME and hated it in DA2. My Shepard always felt like mine, even though she was - as you said - defined and voiced.

 

But my Hawke never felt like mine, she always felt like someone else's puppet that I had to stand in for.

 

I didn't feel limited when I roleplayed in Me, but I couldn't stand how much I felt like a plasticine figure in DA2.

[Sidney]

Shep is no more defined than the warden. That is silly to even claim. Shep is a military man and beyond that not much. That is like saying the Warden is pre-defined because he, well, has to be a Warden.

 

Frankly, none of that affects your ability to role play unless you have such a narrow definition that anything you don't control means "he" isn't "yours" -- and lot of people veer off into that direction.  The Warden or Shep are light years more mine than any of those voiceless ciphers from the TES games. Geralt is feels more like "my" character despite being vastly more pre-defined than anything from even the old BG games. The most fixed character is the nameless one and that was  better role play experience than anything in a more "open" environment. Revan was a great role to play and was pre-defined as hades obviously. Most CRPG's that have role playing as opposed to roll playing have a box they put you into so they can tell a story.

[Fast Jimmy]

 I can and did. I also did so with DAII, and will do so again with Inquisition. Voiced protagonists don't put a lock on playing a character with a unique concept.

If you don't mind, do you mind talking about one of your characters?

[Fast Jimmy]

Shep is no more defined than the warden. That is silly to even claim. Shep is a military man and beyond that not much. That is like saying the Warden is pre-defined because he, well, has to be a Warden.

Frankly, none of that affects your ability to role play unless you have such a narrow definition that anything you don't control means "he" isn't "yours" -- and lot of people veer off into that direction. The Warden or Shep are light years more mine than any of those voiceless ciphers from the TES games. Geralt is feels more like "my" character despite being vastly more pre-defined than anything from even the old BG games. The most fixed character is the nameless one and that was better role play experience than anything in a more "open" environment. Revan was a great role to play and was pre-defined as hades obviously. Most CRPG's that have role playing as opposed to roll playing have a box they put you into so they can tell a story.

As always, YMMV. But my feeling is that the Warden could be thousand shades of variation, especially with the six different origins. Shep was an enlisted soldier in the army, loyal and respectful to the Alliance brass and handled situations with a methodical, plan-of-attack viewpoint. Yes, you have renegade and paragon, or pro-technology or pro-organic skews, and so forth but a large portion of how Shephard acts from a behavior standpoint has a lot established.

Revan and TNO have very set backgrounds, but their amnesia let's the player make their thoughts, behavior and motivations whatever the player wants. A history is not what makes a set character - a developed sense of personality does. Geralt is apathetic to the suffering and politcal intrigue all around him, while. Shephard is a career soldier and is motivated to get the job done, even when everyone calls him crazy or a traitor for doing so. Those are two polar opposite character types, but both are set in their own way.

The Warden could be made to play both these character types, as well as many more. That's why I feel like it is a great roleplaying model.

[Keroko]

If you don't mind, do you mind talking about one of your characters?

 

Certainly. Let's focus on my Hawke's:

 

My first Hawke was a warrior. A mercenary who tried to get by along with his family with a polite, noble manner with the occasional jest. Aimless after the loss of his home, and with no love for the mage-oppresive Chantry, Hawke took an interest in the Qun, until he realized that joining the qunari would just trade one oppressive religion for another. He maintained respect for their way of life though, and fought an honorable duel with the Arishok for the fate of Kirkwall, never learning what brought them here in the first place. (I completely failed to recruit Isabella in this playthrough, so the relic was never brought up). After his sister died in the deep roads, he no longer had a reason to support mages, and with any mage who had been by his side since showing that mages were sticks of dynamite juggled over an open flame, he sided with Meredith during the final fight, trying to save as many mages who surrendered as he could.

 

My second Hawke was a mage. An apostate who was rather fond of his freedom, he would assist any mage who asked for his help. With the exception of any mage performing criminal acts, who he considered to be responsible for the hatred towards mages that continued to this very day. He leapt towards the mage's assistance during the final battle, as he believed no mage should be punished for a crime they didn't commit. Anders got the shank for his deeds.

 

My third Hawke was a rogue who lived by his witty mouth and was always looking for the next hand of gold. That is, until the templars came for his sister. From that moment onwards, he became ruthless and when the final battle came he tore into the templars with vengeance burning in his eyes.

 

I had started a fourth Hawke a while ago, but thunderstorms saw it fit to fry my PS3 so I never finished him. This Hawke would have been the most zealous templar you have ever seen. Never blinking nor blushing in punishing mages. He never did quite trust his sister, and when she had an... "accident" in the deep roads (because darkspawn blood just magically leaps into a woundless mage all the way in the back lines, right?), Hawke was barely able to hide his eagerness. He'd play the part of the saddened brother -his family deserved that much- but there was no reluctance in his heart. With the black stain on his career gone, this Hawke would have thrown himself behind Meredith 100% and any mage that so much as coughed wrongly would get murdered.

[Il Divo]

 

The difference between writing and RPing is that you don't control (a) the scenario and ( the other side of the conversation, making the reaction to the other characters essential. 

 

Exactly this.

 

That's typically why I don't consider headcanon to be role-playing, even if I have nothing against other players doing it (assuming it improves their experience).

 

I wouldn't say that J.K. Rowling role-played Harry Potter. I would say she wrote Harry Potter. Role-playing, as implemented in pen and paper, is a completely different entity from writing.  

[Sidney]

As always, YMMV. But my feeling is that the Warden could be thousand shades of variation, especially with the six different origins. Shep was an enlisted soldier in the army, loyal and respectful to the Alliance brass and handled situations with a methodical, plan-of-attack viewpoint. Yes, you have renegade and paragon, or pro-technology or pro-organic skews, and so forth but a large portion of how Shephard acts from a behavior standpoint has a lot established.

Revan and TNO have very set backgrounds, but their amnesia let's the player make their thoughts, behavior and motivations whatever the player wants. A history is not what makes a set character - a developed sense of personality does. Geralt is apathetic to the suffering and politcal intrigue all around him, while. Shephard is a career soldier and is motivated to get the job done, even when everyone calls him crazy or a traitor for doing so. Those are two polar opposite character types, but both are set in their own way.

The Warden could be made to play both these character types, as well as many more. That's why I feel like it is a great roleplaying model.

 

Again, you are willing to split options with the Warden and lump them with everyone else although you list at least 18 different options (permutations and combinations) just based on the very limited 4 options you list.The Warden had good options but no more or less really than Shep or Hawke or Revan.  I think people who see a lot of differences in the options aren't doing a very good job of role playing these characters too busy worrying about what they can't do rather than what they can-- and all of these had much better options to role play than the BG series for that matter so things are improving.

 

That fixed nature can actual help in many cases. My initial DAO character was a human and chantry hating bitter city elf who really didn't much like the Dalish either since they did nothing to help the city elves and yet in my game I am expending a great amount of effort to save all these people I really don't like. As much as I loved the CE origin and felt like it set up a great RP potential in the game the tone it set for me was jarringly at odds with the actions I had to take all too often. I had to adjust on the fly how I thought my character would behave once I appreciate he HAD to do certain things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But the ambiguity is resolved for us. Even if I agree with you that there are multiple possible interpretations as between the PC and NPC where only one side is voiced, there are still only a defined and finite possible number of interpretations that rationally follow, even if you accept that a range of possible misinterpretations will exist. 

If it's not resolved to one, then there's still ambiguity.  That's not ambiguity being resolved; that's ambiguity remaining.

 

I also don't accept your premise that only a defined and finite possible number of interpretations rationally follow.  Would you care to share your definitions?

 

I don't agree that a silent protagonist isn't limited. In a game like Wasteland 2, where there is very little voice acting then that might be accurate but in a game like DA:O, where everyone else but the Warden is voiced, we are limited by the reactions of the NPCs were are speaking too.

 

We could be imagining ourselves being the biggest hardass in the universe but if our companions aren't reacting to that what's the point.

I don't behave as I do in order to produce results in others.  I behave as I do because that's how I want to behave.

 

I can't control others' reactions.  So why would I judge my own actions based on them.

 

the point is, this is how I want my character to act.  That's all the point ever is.

There are many times in DA:O were it didn't matter what the Warden said or how we were rpging them to say it, the characters basically said the same thing, in the same tone.

I don't care how the NPCs respond.  It's completely irrelevant to my character design.

Writing can't create a response based on something we're imagining in our head.

No, but what's in our head can inform how we interpret that response.

In Wasteland 2, I can give a voice and tone to not only the Rangers, but also is everyone they speak too, so I'm getting the proper reactivity.

 

Liking or not liking a Silent Protagonist is not as cut and dry as some people are making it out to be, as a number of people on this thread have said, it depends on whether or not the rest of the characters are voiced.

 

Perhaps this means that really there are two separate conversations to be had here, one on the merits of a silent protagonist in an all voiced game and another on the merits of a silent protagonist in a game with little to no voice acting, because they are two separate issues.

I personally prefer the NPCs be voiced, because that gives me more to which to react.

[Remmirath]

Voice acting sure didn't hinder Mass Effect...

Sales-wise? Perhaps not. It certainly hindered my enjoyment of the series.

"Role playing" as a hobby activity isn't the same thing as "playing a role" in some general sense.

True, but I think generally when somebody refers to roleplaying as opposed to playing a role they are referring to roleplaying as a hobby activity.

The analogies to acting fall apart because the exact thing you say VO does - force you to have a specific tone and intention - is something that always happens in acting. That's what the writers and directors exist to do. Sure, sometimes an actor will go off the reservation and make their own lines up, but that's pretty rare, and we all recognize it as the actor usurping the role of the director and writer.

Typically, while the actor will certainly have direction from the director and won't be changing the lines in the script, they are free to (and indeed expected to) come up with their own interpretation of the character and bring it to life. The director will let them know if they're going in the wrong direction, but at least in my experience, most directors generally give actors a fair amount of free reign in that -- the actor's own take on the role may well be, after all, part of why the director cast that actor in that role in the first place.

Let me try and put it this way: on your standard, a daydream is roleplaying. This is because you can craft an elaborate mental fantasy, and then simulate out reactions to it. Now, if you want to say all roleplaying is just like daydream and videogames are only RPGs when they mimic that, fair enough. I disagree, but at least we're clear on your position.

Personally, I would say that the ideal thing would be that they not only allow you to create and play your character however you like, but also react to it as well. I am more willing to sacrifice the reactivity than the control over the character -- but only to an extent. If there is no reaction whatsoever, it doesn't really qualify as a roleplaying game to me.

Frankly, none of that affects your ability to role play unless you have such a narrow definition that anything you don't control means "he" isn't "yours" -- and lot of people veer off into that direction. The Warden or Shep are light years more mine than any of those voiceless ciphers from the TES games. Geralt is feels more like "my" character despite being vastly more pre-defined than anything from even the old BG games. The most fixed character is the nameless one and that was better role play experience than anything in a more "open" environment. Revan was a great role to play and was pre-defined as hades obviously. Most CRPG's that have role playing as opposed to roll playing have a box they put you into so they can tell a story.

Well, as I've said before in this thread, my own definition of a roleplaying game includes being able to create and play your character. I'll stretch it from time to time (Planescape: Torment count to me because, despite the past, the current incarnation of the Nameless One is completely up to you in all but appearance), but as that is the one thing that every tabletop RPG system has in common, I find it reasonable to apply as the basis to CRPGs as well.

For me, my character in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale feel far more to be my own characters than Shepard or Hawke, who I had to struggle with to make my own. I did manage, and I can roleplay around the voice and the wheel, but I would rather not have that struggle and have to reload many times per game because of options that turned out differently than I thought they would. I also thought that DA:O did a very good job with allowing for different characters (no game's been perfect yet), and all of my characters in DA:O certainly felt like my own.

I am fine having my character put in something of a box for the sake of the story, so long as they remain my character and controlled by me. Always growing up in Candlekeep? Fine. Being actually the amnesiac Dark Lord of the Sith? Fine. Saying things I didn't choose, in ways I wasn't expecting? Not fine. That's the only one that makes it more difficult to play the character.

As much as I loved the CE origin and felt like it set up a great RP potential in the game the tone it set for me was jarringly at odds with the actions I had to take all too often. I had to adjust on the fly how I thought my character would behave once I appreciate he HAD to do certain things.

My city elf was cool with helping humans, although initially leery of it and with a few bitter flare-ups, but my Dalish elf wasn't -- and I was able to get that across fairly well. There are relatively few instances where you have to help them for any reason that isn't directly related to getting aid to defeat the Blight (which, obviously, is also bad for elves). Redcliff? Let the citizens die, kill Connor to get through with things as quickly as possible. The Circle Tower? Do whatever seems most expedient so you can get their aid. Loghain? He's in your way, so who cares what the humans think of him -- he's got to go.

Yeah, you can end up with a character that's it's impossible to actually play out (if you want to kill anybody who doesn't outright attack you, for instance, that probably won't work), but I do feel there is a vast amount more room for different interpretations than there is in the Mass Effect series or there was in Dragon Age II. In DA II, for example, if your character reaches a point where they just don't care at all about Kirkwall any more... what then? If they don't really care about either mages or templars, what then? There isn't anything that's actually forcing you there. That is of course leaving aside the voice, which will often have you saying things in a way you didn't intend, adding another level of difficulty -- and since there's only one, every male character and every female character will sound exactly the same. That's a problem for me. Voices, and everything one does with them when speaking, are very distinctive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The fact that you have an elaborate mental fantasy about how you can choose the same 3 actions using the same 3 lines, and getting the same responses from NPCs in respect of the same identical consequences does not make for a rich journey unless you enjoy the act of coming up with the elaborate mental fantasy. 

Clearly we do enjoy that.  That's the roleplaying.

 

 

If RPGs are about reactivity, not elaborate mental fantasies, then DA:O offers nothing substantially different from ME, and both are inferior to TW2.

If we presuppose the outcome of the debate, it gets a lot shorter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's the essence of RP. It's what sets it apart from day dreaming.

 

Nothing sets it apart from daydreaming.

 

All a CRPG does is provide us with ongoing stimulus to power the daydream.

The difference between writing and RPing is that you don't control (a) the scenario and (b) the other side of the conversation, making the reaction to the other characters essential.

This works just fine with a silent protagonist.  There's nothing stopping you from interpreting the NPC behaviour as a reaction to your headcanon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That fixed nature can actual help in many cases. My initial DAO character was a human and chantry hating bitter city elf who really didn't much like the Dalish either since they did nothing to help the city elves and yet in my game I am expending a great amount of effort to save all these people I really don't like. As much as I loved the CE origin and felt like it set up a great RP potential in the game the tone it set for me was jarringly at odds with the actions I had to take all too often. I had to adjust on the fly how I thought my character would behave once I appreciate he HAD to do certain things.

I will concede that the CE origin was fairly broken when it came to progressing in the game.  It encouraged character designs that were largely incompatible with the main plot.

 

But the other origins didn't.  That BioWare got one wrong doesn't invalidate the playstyle, given that it works many other places (including on other characters in the same game).  CE isn't evidence that headcanon is bad; it's evidence that sometimes games have issues.

[In Exile]

If it's not resolved to one, then there's still ambiguity.  That's not ambiguity being resolved; that's ambiguity remaining.

 

You're right. I wasn't precise enough. What I meant to say was that ambiguity is directly correlated with the number of possible interpretations of the situation, so as the number of interpretations falls, so too does ambiguity. 

 

I also don't accept your premise that only a defined and finite possible number of interpretations rationally follow.  Would you care to share your definitions?

 

To preface the discussion, we're likely going to disagree on the basis of our basic epistemology assumptions. I say this because I suspect in your view that something could only rationally follow if it necessarily follows (that is, if it follows using deductive logic). That said, I do want to walk you through the reasoning.

 

The interpretation is just the operative result of the assessment of all factors (or features) of a particular interaction. So in a two character interaction, the tone of the PC, the body language, the clothing, relative position, expression etc. as well as the response (which includes all the aforementioned features but for the other character) are all variables that would be part of the assessment of the scene, resulting in its interpretation. Of course, the list of features I mentioned previously is only illustrative - there may (and likely are) others as well. 

 

We know that the NPC is reacting to the PC. As such, the NPCs reaction is a function of the PCs action. We know the NPCs reaction, and we know it's design to operate according to the same social rules and norms that govern human behaviour IRL in western (North American/Canadian) society. It's this circumstance that renders the possible interpretations of the PC finite. While two different actions may lead to the same reaction, the fact that the reaction is the same in all cases acts as a boundary condition of the range of possible values for any of the factors that go into the interpretation of the PC. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're right. I wasn't precise enough. What I meant to say was that ambiguity is directly correlated with the number of possible interpretations of the situation, so as the number of interpretations falls, so too does ambiguity. 

Understood.

To preface the discussion, we're likely going to disagree on the basis of our basic epistemology assumptions. I say this because I suspect in your view that something could only rationally follow if it necessarily follows (that is, if it follows using deductive logic).

The reason I do that is because we're talking about the interpretation people are using in a game they ostensibly want to enjoy.  The necessary conclusions are the only conclusions they have to draw - everything else is optional.  If those optional conclusions leads to a suboptimal gameplay experience, I can't see why people would draw them.

 

If one's standard of evidence makes one unhappy, one should consider adjusting the standard of evidence.

That said, I do want to walk you through the reasoning.

Thank you.

The interpretation is just the operative result of the assessment of all factors (or features) of a particular interaction. So in a two character interaction, the tone of the PC, the body language, the clothing, relative position, expression etc. as well as the response (which includes all the aforementioned features but for the other character) are all variables that would be part of the assessment of the scene, resulting in its interpretation. Of course, the list of features I mentioned previously is only illustrative - there may (and likely are) others as well. 

 

We know that the NPC is reacting to the PC. As such, the NPCs reaction is a function of the PCs action. We know the NPCs reaction, and we know it's design to operate according to the same social rules and norms that govern human behaviour IRL in western (North American/Canadian) society. It's this circumstance that renders the possible interpretations of the PC finite. While two different actions may lead to the same reaction, the fact that the reaction is the same in all cases acts as a boundary condition of the range of possible values for any of the factors that go into the interpretation of the PC.

Indulge me.  What if we also assume that we know the PC's action?  This is how I play.  I know the PC's action, and thus I interpret the NPC's reaction with that knowledge in mind.  Given the PC's action and the NPC's reaction, then what conclusions are available?

 

Also, I'm not great with the IRL social rules, so I don't typically claim to know that the game is designed to mimic them.  As I've said before, I think DAO's conversations mimicked real world dialogue extremely well, so obviously we're working from different ideas of what IRL interactions are like.

[In Exile]

Clearly we do enjoy that.  That's the roleplaying.

 

Yes. It just that sometimes people will try to suggest that this definition of RPing is distinct from daydreaming, which the source of my objection. It's one thing to disagree over the scope of a definition, and quite another to adopt an internally inconsistent position. 

 

This works just fine with a silent protagonist.  There's nothing stopping you from interpreting the NPC behaviour as a reaction to your headcanon.

 

As I said, I think it ceases to be roleplay once you act on both sides of the interaction. It becomes writing. I am of the view that one fundamental aspect of roleplay is the limit to control, namely, that the only thing under your control is the character. There is a difference between your interpretation of the NPC and what the NPC does as a matter of fact. So, to use an example, my PC might think Alistair approved, even where Alistair disapproved. The approval meter is information for me, not for the character. It's OOC UI. 

 

What prevents you from interpreting the NPC behaviour as a reaction to the character is the requirement that you engage in character interpretation (in the literary sense) to justify the possibility of the reaction. That is, when you say that it's possible that Alistair might react the same to the same line delivered in X and Y manner, you have to (quite apart from the in-character interpretation of his behaviour) interpret his literary character (I uses this in the sense of who Alistair actually is, quite apart from what the character thinks Alistair is like). 

 

To take the royal bastard line, my PC might have lots of explanations for why Alistair acts as he does. That's different from the explanations we as players have, because we (among other things) have access to information that the PC does not have. For Alistair's reactions to justifiably vary, it's not always enough for the PC to be able to interpret it differently - it also has to be possible for Alistair to be different. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

To take the royal bastard line, my PC might have lots of explanations for why Alistair acts as he does. That's different from the explanations we as players have, because we (among other things) have access to information that the PC does not have. For Alistair's reactions to justifiably vary, it's not always enough for the PC to be able to interpret it differently - it also has to be possible for Alistair to be different. 

I've said that very thing in the past.

 

But why can't Alistair be different?  We don't need to understand or justify his reactions - we just have to avoid using our metaknowledge to invalidate them.

[In Exile]

The reason I do that is because we're talking about the interpretation people are using in a game they ostensibly want to enjoy.  The necessary conclusions are the only conclusions they have to draw - everything else is optional.  If those optional conclusions leads to a suboptimal gameplay experience, I can't see why people would draw them.

 

If one's standard of evidence makes one unhappy, one should consider adjusting the standard of evidence.

 

I understand your position. Where I disagree with it is in the assumption that it's justifiable to choose between standards of evidence. You may disagree with me in this regard, but I view it the same as determining which forms of reasoning you (the general you) consider valid. 

 

Indulge me.  What if we also assume that we know the PC's action?  This is how I play.  I know the PC's action, and thus I interpret the NPC's reaction with that knowledge in mind.  Given the PC's action and the NPC's reaction, then what conclusions are available?

 

Also, I'm not great with the IRL social rules, so I don't typically claim to know that the game is designed to mimic them.  As I've said before, I think DAO's conversations mimicked real world dialogue extremely well, so obviously we're working from different ideas of what IRL interactions are like.

 

In respect of IRL social rules, I think there's an important distinction between our individual capacity to apply them and their existence and impact on the possible interpretations of a given social interaction. That is, whether or not you or I could ever understand those rules, the rules still apply. Our inability to provide an exhaustive and coherent description of physics does not mean that the rules of physics do not apply - it simply means that at least part of those rules are unknowable (at least as of right now). 

 

I'm not sure I understand your first point. Part of my answer is the same as (in what is now) the post above. That is, there is a difference between the in-character interpretation of the NPC (from the POV of the PC) and the actual dynamic of the conversation from what we might say is an omniscient POV (which is not strictly speaking the player's POV, because we have the same limits as the PC in terms of our ability to assess behaviour). From the PC's POV, you know your own actions, but you don't know (not with certainty) the interpretation of them, and then you have to filter the NPC's reactions through your own subjective calculus. But from the omniscient POV, there is an actual answer to (1) the PC's action is and (2) the NPC's possible reaction to that action.