391 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Artifice]

Wouldn't have been that bad, just aimed at a different demographic of rpg gamers.

 

If it wasn't story focused the whole thing would likely have featured a much deeper combat system and encounter design to compensate, an analogy could be drawn to what Icewind Dale did in comparison to Baldur's Gate.

 

As for cRPG's in comparison to pen and paper, the only rpg id consider a possible equal would be planescape torment, that has writing that still haven't been matched to this day.

 

A demographic so far removed from my own that it wouldn't have provided most of the aspects that I loved about it, the things that had me playing it more times than I've ever played any RPG. I played through the human noble origin alone about 20 times, exhausted every single possible dialogue path. 

 

Bioware hasn't ever really provided my favorite combat experiences. If that's where my whole focus was, I wouldn't be here. I play Bioware rpg's mostly for the character interaction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sure, they're "role-playing" opportunities in the weakest sense of the word. Of course, how much I get to express who that character is going to be pretty much nil in absence of some kind of external stimulus. Playing an evil character wandering the wilderness who never encounters any opportunities to be evil isn't the most interesting character concept.

Evil isn't in your actions. Evil is in your motives. And the motives are always there.

I have never let BioWare define my character's motives for me, nor will I.

Ignoring also the plethora of campaigns that take place in urban environments which offer dozens of opportunities for character interaction.

That's fair.

And a big part of why I don’t like urban adventures.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Madness! Character interaction is basically the core component that keeps me with these games. Without it, I would've abandoned them a long time ago.

Mass Effect is chock-full of character interaction, and I did abandon it.

Because I wasn't permitted to play my character. All I could do was watch theirs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hence why I'd argue you're not role-playing. The player is not ever supposed to fill the role of the game-master. That division of labor is exactly what allows the distinction between role-playing and writing to even exist. A role-player controls one single aspect of that world: his character, who is a lens through which he filters the world. The DM's job is to provide the world. And to be clear, when I say "the world", I don't simply mean a landscape.

A player who can't compartmentalize is a player who wouldn't be able to roleplay anyway. Being both character and game master simply requires an extra level of compartmentalization.

I don't dispute that a cRPG has most of the same basic roles as a tabletop. Bioware as the developer is essentially filling in as the game-master, the player remains the player.

That's the traditional arrangement, and probably the one BioWare expects, but that doesn't mean we have to play that way.

Because an RPG is a toy. We can do whatever we want with it.

What I am disputing is the idea that cRPG's can ever effectively fill the void of what tabletop does best: near limitless character options, near limitless reactivity, near limitless new content.

While the character options are more limited, I don’t think they're nearly as limited as you think they are - particularly in older games.

My introduction to RPGs was actually a CRPG - Questron - in 1984.

Only assuming the requisite level of nuance was "I'm evil!" and "I'll help you!".

Assuming that nuance needs to be explicitly displayed.

But it doesn't.

As a pen and paper experience, if I was restricted to the dialogue options imposed by Baldur's Gate, I never would have made it past Candlekeep.

I have two responses to this, and either one of them should be adequate. They're arguably incompatible, though, so it's important to note that I am not advocating their use together. I am merely presenting both as options.

1. I don't feel particularly limited by the dialogue options, because I get to decide why my character is saying that thing. I can decide whether my character is truthful. I can have my character be evasive by answering questions very narrowly, or by responding with a question of his own.

In the real world, there's rarely something in particular I need to say. When a response is required, I'll typically run through options in my mind, discarding them as unacceptable, until I find one that is consistent with my objectives. In this respect, I think BioWare's silent protagonist with full text dialogue options mimics real world conversation just about exactly.

2. Why do you think you are limited to thise dialogue options? Have you ever played older CRPGs that used a keyword or text-parsing dialogue system? In thise games, were the players' characters always just speaking lkne keywords at people? Or were those keywords an abstraction of intelligible dialogue?

Does anything prevent the full text options from being abstractions as well? I would argue not.

Also, the paraphrases we see in ME and DAI are similarly abstract. And since we can't see the actual line until after it has been selected, I would argue that that dialogue needs to be viewed as an abstraction in order to maintain anything resembling character coherence.

[theflyingzamboni]

Kinda, since time-sink "filler" has been a BioWare staple for a long time. This didn't magically emerge in Inquisition.
 

Or, they're just two different kinds of worlds with different emerging and optional content. And TW3's environment is still quite video-gamey: the repetitious blue-collar contract structure that demands the predefined PC's attention, the numerous scavenger hunts, the resource-gathering, the village reclaiming, the Detective-mode trail following, the hidden and guarded chest quests, etc. The aspects of TW3's open-world exploration also feel very much like a game.

 

When I say that, I'm referring to the way they present life in their worlds. One attempts to give the illusion of a world populated by individuals with their own lives. The other just gives you areas to run around in. 
 

This makes it sound like it's your approach to the game that's the problem, rather than the design.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that. If you mean that I want to experience all the content that was designed when I play a game, if that approach becomes a problem it is a problem in the design. My approach has only ever been a problem when what was designed isn't engaging.

f you mean I should spread out the exploration between story missions so I'm not hammering through it all at once, I tried that the first time I played and it ruined the flow of the narrative. And now that I know that a game can present me with a large amount of open-world exploration without making me feel that way, DA:I's design just doesn't cut it. Fortunately there is an answer: next time I play I'll use CheatEngine so I can do as little side-content as possible. I'm sure that approach will yield more enjoyment. Which is a problem that I do not want to be faced with in ME:A.

[Il Divo]

Evil isn't in your actions. Evil is in your motives. And the motives are always there.

I have never let BioWare define my character's motives for me, nor will I.

 

Correct. Evil is in your motives. But I did point out that it is possible, but not an interesting character concept. If all a player wanted to do was think about being an evil character, then Microsoft Word offers far more freedom than Baldur's Gate or any Bioware game ever will. The whole point of the game world is to provide opportunities to reflect my character concept via my actions and reactions.

[Il Divo]

A player who can't compartmentalize is a player who wouldn't be able to roleplay anyway. Being both character and game master simply requires an extra level of compartmentalization.

 

 

 

To this I would counter then that the dislike you have towards Mass Effect/cinematics could stem from the inability to compartmentalize what's happening on screen with what you imagine to be happening, similar to your outline regarding character concepts below. We can rationalize anything away if we try hard enough. But again that rather removes the point of the experience.

 

cRPG's provide two benefits: a (very rough) simulation of a tabletop campaign and the ability to engage in solo play. With this, I'd argue your approach removes much of the point behind the former, in which case there are better alternatives out there than cRPG's.

 

That's the traditional arrangement, and probably the one BioWare expects, but that doesn't mean we have to play that way.
Because an RPG is a toy. We can do whatever we want with it.

 

 

 

True, Bioware can't tell you how to play the game, beyond what they do or don't implement. But similar to above, you're essentially removing the key advantages to playing the game in the first place, to say nothing that it turns the experience into a "writing game" instead of a "role-playing game".

 

While the character options are more limited, I don’t think they're nearly as limited as you think they are - particularly in older games.

My introduction to RPGs was actually a CRPG - Questron - in 1984.

 

 

 

They're limited in so far as a player that you want to express these ideas. That is a key benefit of pen and paper. Anything I want to say, I can say. Any action I want to take, I can take. There may be consequences for them, but I have the ability to conduct any action I can think of. It doesn't involve maneuvering around 2-D pixels of Baldur's Gate, believing the characters are having deep conversations, despite their simply standing there repeating "Go for the eyes boo!" etc. That's about as far from tabletop as it gets in terms of design.

 

The point of the visual/gaming component is to provide that aspect to bounce your actions off of. If all I was interested in was the setting, I'd just pick up a campaign setting, read up on the lore, and imagine these stories in my head. It would certainly be cheaper (and more efficient) than a c'RPG.

 

Assuming that nuance needs to be explicitly displayed.
But it doesn't.

 

 

Perhaps my character wants to explicitly display it. It's certainly not uncommon for people to want more dialogue options than those extremes, hence a huge negative that doesn't exist in pen and paper.

 

And even if what you're saying is true, I don't need the game world. If my only desire was simply to have it all occur in my head, without the ability to actively express these concepts, a Word document is far more liberating than any video game could manage.

[HusarX]

Same here.

5-6h max, so I can go asap into the PVP multiplayer.

[Il Divo]

I have two responses to this, and either one of them should be adequate. They're arguably incompatible, though, so it's important to note that I am not advocating their use together. I am merely presenting both as options.

1. I don't feel particularly limited by the dialogue options, because I get to decide why my character is saying that thing. I can decide whether my character is truthful. I can have my character be evasive by answering questions very narrowly, or by responding with a question of his own.

In the real world, there's rarely something in particular I need to say. When a response is required, I'll typically run through options in my mind, discarding them as unacceptable, until I find one that is consistent with my objectives. In this respect, I think BioWare's silent protagonist with full text dialogue options mimics real world conversation just about exactly.

2. Why do you think you are limited to thise dialogue options? Have you ever played older CRPGs that used a keyword or text-parsing dialogue system? In thise games, were the players' characters always just speaking lkne keywords at people? Or were those keywords an abstraction of intelligible dialogue?

Does anything prevent the full text options from being abstractions as well? I would argue not.

Also, the paraphrases we see in ME and DAI are similarly abstract. And since we can't see the actual line until after it has been selected, I would argue that that dialogue needs to be viewed as an abstraction in order to maintain anything resembling character coherence.

 

1. I'd argue that raises a few red flags in terms of game design. You're arguing from a real world perspective. How many people would feel restricted in terms of their identity/ability to express themselves if they were limited to Bioware dialogue options? Even if we were to concede that you can decide the intent (and that's definitely not something I'd agree on), that's a huge limiting factor in your ability to express yourself in so many different ways.

 

This is going back to the awkward dialogue featured in Candlekeep, after the assassination attempts. Given interpretation # 1, in the real world we should be able to function just as well without any feelings of being restricted. Of course, the idea that you never get to express your motive is itself non-sensical. Hence my point regarding the lack of nuance. You're restricted to very extreme dialogue in cRPG's, especially the older ones.

 

Hell, in this thread alone, how many different ideas have we expressed using a mix of words and sentences? None of this works with your first interpretation. Going by this, pen and paper still wins out because everything we are saying can be said in that context with absolutely zero issues. If you were restricted to Baldur's Gate-level of dialogue, you wouldn't have been able to put together any of the above.

 

2. Morrowind was like this and I enjoyed that game very much. In that regard though, I'd argue that what you're promoting was a fault, not a feature, at least from a role-playing stand point. It goes back to the point of wanting the game to provide those opportunities which, as above, exist in pen and paper. It's ultimately why I'm bothering to pay for the game instead of just buying a campaign setting.

 

Regarding ME/DA, that's a fair interpretation, but even in Mass Effect's case, the point of the paraphrase was that they believed that what was said was similar enough to what was written that there wasn't much necessity to distinguish between the two. For an evil character, the basic idea is that saying "I'm going to kill you!" and "You're going to die!" are in essence indistinguishable. Unfortunately, in practice, it hasn't worked well in that regard, but I would also point out that improving the paraphrase system has been a goal for precisely that reason.

 

To be clear though, I'm also not a proponent of the paraphrase system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To this I would counter then that the dislike you have towards Mass Effect/cinematics could stem from the inability to compartmentalize what's happening on screen with what you imagine to be happening, similar to your outline regarding character concepts below. We can rationalize anything away if we try hard enough. But again that rather removes the point of the experience.

I was wondering if you'd notice that.

Using DA2 as an example, I genuinely disliked playing that game, but I think it does a good job of offering me the tools I need to roleplay. The largely directionless plot, combined with the unreliable narrator, was perfect for headcanoning.

However, that rendered the actual playing of the game largely pointless, as nothing I was doing was relevant to my character's actions. Combine that with the worst party-based combat BioWare has ever done, and playing the game was awful.

But I still cared about my character, and my headcanon was compatible with the Keep and DAI, so in hindsight I enjoy DA2's narrative. It just wasn't a good game.

With the ME games, with their far narrower plots and fewer options to do anything, I didn't really have anything to do with my character without just writing everything myself. The only enjoyable part of any of the ME games was exploring the uncharted worlds and driving the Mako, because that was the only time I got to do anything in response to the game world without being told what it was I was doing.

I can ignore the on-screen events, but I don’t find the setting or events interesting enough to bother.

What MEA should do to avoid this is not have a Kill Foozle plot. Kill Foozle plots are inherently linear. All games will Kill Foozle plots suffer for it.

BG remains my favourite BioWare game largely because the Kill Foozle plot was disguised for much of the game. NWN was a series of short-term goals (much like DA2), so it also ranks highly.

cRPG's provide two benefits: a (very rough) simulation of a tabletop campaign and the ability to engage in solo play. With this, I'd argue your approach removes much of the point behind the former, in which case there are better alternatives out there than cRPG's.

I do read tabletop sourcebooks recreationally. I've been collecting them for about 25 years.

I play CRPGs because they do much of the work for me in showing me the world and keeping track of details.

They're limited in so far as a player that you want to express these ideas. That is a key benefit of pen and paper. Anything I want to say, I can say. Any action I want to take, I can take. There may be consequences for them, but I have the ability to conduct any action I can think of. It doesn't involve maneuvering around 2-D pixels of Baldur's Gate, believing the characters are having deep conversations, despite their simply standing there repeating "Go for the eyes boo!" etc. That's about as far from tabletop as it gets in terms of design.

The point of the visual/gaming component is to provide that aspect to bounce your actions off of. If all I was interested in was the setting, I'd just pick up a campaign setting, read up on the lore, and imagine these stories in my head. It would certainly be cheaper (and more efficient) than a c'RPG.

I completely agree with this.

Perhaps my character wants to explicitly display it. It's not exactly uncommon for people to want more dialogue options than those extremes, hence a huge negative that doesn't exist in pen and paper.

Our ability to control intent and tone (in the silent protagonist games) helps with this a lot. I can have my character express things the writers may not have foreseen.

And if the NPCs totally miss my point, well, that's just like how real world conversations work. And it adds a layer to my character's assessment of the NPC.

I do find that characters tend to grow more misanthropic as the game progresses. That probably says more about me than it does about the games.

And even if what you're saying is true, I don't need the game world. If my only desire was simply to have it all occur in my head, without the ability to actively express these concepts, a Word document is far more liberating than any video game could manage.

And more work.

[The Hierophant]

However, that rendered the actual playing of the game largely pointless, as nothing I was doing was relevant to my character's actions. Combine that with the worst party-based combat BioWare has ever done, and playing the game was awful.

Despite my complete dislike of the combat, DA2 featured a tactics system that was mechanically superior to DAO's and FF12's.  It's a shame the team had scrapped the one feature who's improvement wasn't purely subjective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

1. I'd argue that raises a few red flags in terms of game design. You're arguing from a real world perspective. How many people would feel restricted in terms of their identity/ability to express themselves if they were limited to Bioware dialogue options? Even if we were to concede that you can decide the intent (and that's definitely not something I'd agree on), that's a huge limiting factor in your ability to express yourself in so many different ways.

I would argue that you're not limited in that way.

It's not that you couldn't have said something else, simply that you didn't.

This is going back to the awkward dialogue featured in Candlekeep, after the assassination attempts.

Those aren't good, and I do think they work better with approach #2.

Given interpretation # 1, in the real world we should be able to function just as well without any feelings of being restricted. Of course, the idea that you never get to express your motive is itself non-sensical.

Why? What would ever be the point of expressing motive?

Claiming motive, perhaps.

Hence my point regarding the lack of nuance. You're restricted to very extreme dialogue in cRPG's, especially the older ones.

Hell, in this thread alone, how many different ideas have we expressed using a mix of words and sentences? None of this works with your first interpretation. Going by this, pen and paper still wins out because everything we are saying can be said in that context with absolutely zero issues. If you were restricted to Baldur's Gate-level of dialogue, you wouldn't have been able to put together any of the above.

The spoken language is but a pale imitation of the written language. In CRPGs, we're only trying to simulate the spoken language.

2. Morrowind was like this and I enjoyed that game very much. In that regard though, I'd argue that what you're promoting was a fault, not a feature, at least from a role-playing stand point. It goes back to the point of wanting the game to provide those opportunities which, as above, exist in pen and paper. It's ultimately why I'm bothering to pay for the game instead of just buying a campaign setting.

Despite my earlier assertion, I do tend to use both methods, switching back and forth as necessary line by line.

If I were limited to the actual lines written, and the tones and intents supposedly intended by the writers, I never would have liked these games.

Regarding ME/DA, that's a fair interpretation, but even in Mass Effect's case, the point of the paraphrase was that they believed that what was said was similar enough to what was written that there wasn't much necessity to distinguish between the two. For an evil character, the basic idea is that saying "I'm going to kill you!" and "You're going to die!" are in essence indistinguishable. Unfortunately, in practice, it hasn't worked well in that regard, but I would also point out that improving the paraphrase system has been a goal for precisely that reason.

BioWare's response to requests to let us mute the protagonist suggests that they don't think the paraphrases are sufficiently informative. But since we're choosing based on them, they must be abstractions (unless we're just not roleplaying the character, which isn't something BioWare seems willing to admit).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Despite my complete dislike of the combat, DA2 featured a tactics system that was mechanically superior to DAO's and FF12's. It's a shame the team had scrapped the one feature who's improvement wasn't purely subjective.

Absolutely.

DA2's tactics system is the standard by which all others should be judged.

The only way I can imagine making it better would be let us write tactical instructions in an API.

[The Hierophant]

Absolutely.

DA2's tactics system is the standard by which all others should be judged.

The only way I can imagine making it better would be let us write tactical instructions in an API.

True. Sadly but with EA's console focus and their Frostbite anti modding/coding policies they won't go down that route.

[AlanC9]

I
BioWare's response to requests to let us mute the protagonist suggests that they don't think the paraphrases are sufficiently informative. But since we're choosing based on them, they must be abstractions (unless we're just not roleplaying the character, which isn't something BioWare seems willing to admit).

It might be that they don't want to worry about context for subsequent NPC lines. Shepard sometimes mentions specific facts in the spoken line; these can make the NPC's next line into a bit of a non-sequitur if you didn't hear the preceding PC line. I don't think Bio should actually worry about an optional feature appearing to introduce glitches, but Bio historically has.

[Il Divo]

I would argue that you're not limited in that way.

It's not that you couldn't have said something else, simply that you didn't.

 

In effect, the two are equivalent. Using approach #1 as you outlined denies you the ability to express those concepts, resulting in a reduction in role-playing capability. That's exactly my point: you couldn't express anything else, even if you wanted to. As such, your role-playing options are constrained to character concepts who would express one of those two viewpoints, even if you'd like to argue you control intent. Pen and paper would never allow this, by any stretch. You can use words to express an infinite number of ideas in an infinite number of ways. What's more, you have the ability to decide when you interject into a conversation, rather than being limited to Bioware's prompts to participate.

 

 

Why? What would ever be the point of expressing motive?
Claiming motive, perhaps​

 

 

Both work equally well in this context, whether the PC is being truthful or deceitful. The issue is that game (quite often) lacks the ability to express a standpoint for why he is performing his actions. Baldur's Gate, being Bioware's first RPG, this often meant that your charcter was often limited to 2 variations on "I will kill you all" and "I will help you all". At least in the context of approach # 1.

 

The spoken language is but a pale imitation of the written language. In CRPGs, we're only trying to simulate the spoken language.

 

 

I'd argue this is somewhat of a dodge. None of the ideas that you or I have expressed in written form can't by necessity be expressed in spoken form. You could argue it's easier to formulate those ideas correctly with more time. And that's fair.

 

But that still isn't enough to justify the conclusion that the BG approach (or Bioware approach in general) works within the confines of the first ​approach you outlined (or real life responses in general), given that it's restrictive to a very small subset of responses.
 

 

Despite my earlier assertion, I do tend to use both methods, switching back and forth as necessary line by line.

If I were limited to the actual lines written, and the tones and intents supposedly intended by the writers, I never would have liked these games.

 

 

That's fine, and it would fit within your framework of RPG's as toys. There's nothing stopping you from switching back and forth. On the other hand, given the broad applicability of approach # 2, is approach # 1 really necessary?  If we can treat the spoken dialogue as "guidelines more than actual rules", we should equally be able to use the written dialogue if it still fits.

 

BioWare's response to requests to let us mute the protagonist suggests that they don't think the paraphrases are sufficiently informative. But since we're choosing based on them, they must be abstractions (unless we're just not roleplaying the character, which isn't something BioWare seems willing to admit). 

 

         

I think of it like a spectrum. Paraphrasing is on the far end of my ideal role-playing, but it also doesn't mean that all paraphrase systems are equally bad. Some Bioware games have been better and worse in that regard. In terms of expression, muting would allow slight nuances of expression that aren't currently available.

[Rannik]

All videogames are a time sink.

[Il Divo]

And if the NPCs totally miss my point, well, that's just like how real world conversations work. And it adds a layer to my character's assessment of the NPC.

 

 

​That kinda outlines the other huge issue here, at least in terms of pen and paper comparisons. Somebody misinterprets my character? Ask and rephrase. It's one of the bigger issues I have with the idea of ambiguous intent in silent protagonists.

 

Even if I wanted to, I can't actively express that misunderstanding to any npc's. What's more, I can't play a pro-active character concept who takes the lead during conversations, because (most of the time) we have to wait for Bioware prompts to choose dialogue. That might not be a deal breaker for playing cRPG's, but in terms of pen and paper comparisons, that's a huge limitation.

 

And more work.

 

          

Well, mainly if we need new settings. On the other hand too, (based on your statements), for any game which you have played substantially, we'd probably have more mileage headcanoning a story in that setting than actively playing it out in game. In that context, the work's already been done, but without any of the limitations of the medium.

​
 

[Beerfish]

Length of time to do things for me really depends on if I feel I am accomplish something, even if it is your standard fetch 10 items quest.  I have not quite finished DAI yet but have been back playing it and it has a certain frustration for me due to the actual level designs.  It is one thing to have to go to an area, search and find an item but a whole other to take a half hour to try and get something where you know it;s location but you just can't get to it.  Especially when you feel you are being trolled by the designers by them letting you almost reach it numerous times.

 

That and quests that appear to be bugged.  I have one that is annoying me in DAI in which I have done everything asked and the quest will not complete. That kind of time sink is awful.

[o Ventus]

You've lost me here. Are you actually accusing Sylvius of that?

 

No, I'm saying that's what it sounds like, because it reminds me of that type of behavior.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It might be that they don't want to worry about context for subsequent NPC lines. Shepard sometimes mentions specific facts in the spoken line; these can make the NPC's next line into a bit of a non-sequitur if you didn't hear the preceding PC line.

If those details were relevant, they needed to be in the paraphrase.  If they're not in the paraphrase, then they can't be relevant without rendering the paraphrase inadequate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It does when it's a combination of words that he invented. That's the entire purpose of having language to begin with.

For that to be true, it would need to be impossible to misuse words.

 

Do you think it's impossible to misuse words?  Or do you photosynthesis purple fast if?

Except for when it is, like in this case.

Since the intent of another person is never knowable, I fail to see how that would help.

Tell that to every RPG where there is in fact a winning condition or established outcome.

I have yet to see one.

 

The purpose of a roleplaying game is to roleplay.  That's it.  Any winning conditions that exist are there for the characters, not the players.

 

You're a player.

No, it's a game. It's in the name. Be as obtuse and contrarian as you want, that doesn't change the meaning of the words.

So by giving something a name, I can determine what it is?

 

From now on, I shall call you Carrot.

 

Alternatively, do you accept that a hummingbird is a dinosaur?  The rules of biological taxonomy require that it is.  Does that make is it a dinosaur to you?

This is the same line of thinking used by conspiracy theorist nutjobs who say stupid garbage, then turn around and say "What? I'm just asking questions" when they're called out for saying idiotic nonsense.

It depends whether you have answers to those questions.  It also depends whether they're actually asking questions.  Syntax matters.

 

In my experience, people are far too eager to hold opinions, even when those opinions lack foundation.  However, it's exceedingly difficult to get them to listen if I make positive assertions to the contrary.  Instead, I ask questions about their opinions, thus forcing them to examine (belatedly) those underpinnings (or lack thereof).

[Sylvius the Mad]

In effect, the two are equivalent. Using approach #1 as you outlined denies you the ability to express those concepts, resulting in a reduction in role-playing capability.

The difference is whether you're prevented from playing a character who wants to express those concepts, or whether you're merely prevented from playing a character who does express those concepts.

 

I find the latter far less limiting.

That's exactly my point: you couldn't express anything else, even if you wanted to.

You couldn't.

 

Your character could.  He just didn't.

As such, your role-playing options are constrained to character concepts who would express one of those two viewpoints, even if you'd like to argue you control intent.

No, your roleplaying options are limited to character concepts who can express or those viewpoints.

 

In any given situation, there's a seemingly limitless set of things you could say.  You only actually say one of them, but a vast array of others wouldn't have been inconsistent with who you are and what your objectives were in that conversation.

Pen and paper would never allow this, by any stretch. You can use words to express an infinite number of ideas in an infinite number of ways. What's more, you have the ability to decide when you interject into a conversation, rather than being limited to Bioware's prompts to participate.

I'll concede the prompt issue.  In Exile and I, several years ago, actually worked out a system for interrupts which wouldn't have a twitch component, would give full information about what you were going to be able to do, and would let you interrupt NPC dialogue between full prompts.  But obviously it would still be limited to scripted interrupt opportunities.

 

Again, I don't think we need to be able to do everything we might be able to do in a tabletop game.  We just need to be able to avoid character-breaking behaviour.

Both work equally well in this context, whether the PC is being truthful or deceitful. The issue is that game (quite often) lacks the ability to express a standpoint for why he is performing his actions.

I don't see how this is a problem.

I'd argue this is somewhat of a dodge. None of the ideas that you or I have expressed in written form can't by necessity be expressed in spoken form. You could argue it's easier to formulate those ideas correctly with more time. And that's fair.

 

But that still isn't enough to justify the conclusion that the BG approach (or Bioware approach in general) works within the confines of the first ​approach you outlined (or real life responses in general), given that it's restrictive to a very small subset of responses.

Spoken exchanges, in my experience, are significantly more shallow and less precise than written exchanges.  The biggest driver of line selection seems to be time pressure.  By not having time pressure, RPG dialogue allows us to choose exactly the right option among the finite list presented.  One form of uncertainty and risk is replaced with another, but the general accuracy of the line stays about the same.

 

I find the time pressures of spoken exchanges extremely damaging.

That's fine, and it would fit within your framework of RPG's as toys. There's nothing stopping you from switching back and forth. On the other hand, given the broad applicability of approach # 2, is approach # 1 really necessary?  If we can treat the spoken dialogue as "guidelines more than actual rules", we should equally be able to use the written dialogue if it still fits.

No it isn't, but if I open with Approach 2 people tend to dismiss me as a crackpot.  Approach 1 is there only to get people used to the idea of thinking about dialogue selection more deeply.

I think of it like a spectrum. Paraphrasing is on the far end of my ideal role-playing, but it also doesn't mean that all paraphrase systems are equally bad. Some Bioware games have been better and worse in that regard. In terms of expression, muting would allow slight nuances of expression that aren't currently available.

At no cost.

 

A muting option would unequivocally improve paraphrase systems.

[DWareFan]

Hmm... if you weren't completing Skyrim quests, what were you doing for those 700 hours?

 

Dungeons, exploring, modding and trying out modding, gathering materials and crafting, doing a lot of the fun stuff that modders added to the game.  Skyrim's quests were also boring.  The only quest lines that I actually completed were the Dark Brotherhood and companions (wanted to see what it was like to be a werewolf).  Now Oblivion, I completed the entire game.  Loved it.

[7thGate]

I absolutely loved the addition of emotion tags on everything in DA2, because they gave you significantly greater control over what you said.  One of the things I liked least about the text based approach is that it usually doesn't include the style of what you're saying (although there isn't any reason why it couldn't--its kind of orthogonal to the text vs. speech, I suppose, I just haven't seen it done in text before).  A significant portion of communication is not in the actual words people say, but in how they say them, and by including a handy tag for that it greatly helps in saying something close to what your character wants to say in many situations, which aids in role playing immensely.

 

I find it is especially important in cases where a statement can either be a joke or an insult depending on how its stated, or in cases where you're giving compliments or positive feedback to someone who may be romantically interested in you.  Saying how much you enjoy spending time with someone and how happy you are that they're on your team can change meaning dramatically depending on how you say it, and having the comedic/insult or diplomatic/heart tags greatly helps control the type of delivery your character gives.

 

While I do agree that in principle, written exchanges can be more in depth because people can read up to 3 or 4 times faster than they can speak, you do get a counterbalancing force in that voiced conversations are deepened by the inclusion of nonverbal communication cues from people your character interacts with.  Also, text isn't always leveraged into providing a greater variety of possible responses; I'm playing Baldur's Gate 1 for the first time right now, and its downright depressing how weak and sparse the dialogue is.  Paucity of text combined with the nearly nonexistent character interaction to date, all the problems of lack of emotion tagging on the responses I can give and an iffy combat system means I'm probably never going to finish this one.