But Wynne also isn't "you."
None of the characters are me, not even the characters I create. I'm the player. I don't exist within the game world. I can't even interact with it directly.
The characters can.
So it doesn't really work as well here, because you should be roleplaying your characters, not established ones in the continuity.
In a party-based game, I expect to roleplay the entire party. I'm clearly expected to do that some of the time, as I can control them in combat and tell then what skills to learn and what equipment to use and even whether to become blood mages. All of those things are roleplaying events.
Especially when your character doesn't have the ability to call her out on her hypothetical hypocrisy.
Not on camera. And that's assuming that the other character even notices or cares. The other party members don't seem to notice or care either. Isn't that interesting?
That's exactly what a RPG should allow you to do.
Yes, but that limitation exists in every aspect of a CRPG. There's always something you might want to say or do but can't because they haven't modelled that in the game. So, if you want to do something the game doesn't allow, your only options are to turn off the game and just imagine the subsequent events - this is how a DAO Warden can run away to Orlais (this is also how I dealt with the entire third act of DA2) - or you need to headcanon that interaction as having taken place off-screen.
We know that some things happen off-screen. Eating, for example. Setting up camp. If I'm already roleplaying Wynne, I can roleplay conversations involving her off-screen.
Either that, or the game designers should have disabled the ability for the player to make Wynne a Blood Mage. That would work even better for Wynne's character. Wynne for all intents and purpose would be another "player," so it really doesn't make much sense to do things with Wynne and doesn't establish more roleplaying by doing that, but less, because that means that the game simply doesn't acknowledge the possibility of blood mage Wynne.
Then we shouldn't be able to control Wynne at all. She should be fully autonomous, acting on her own in combat and selecting her own equipment. Like a follower in Skyrim.
There's no reason to draw the line where you're drawing it. I suggest we should pick one extreme or the other.
It'd have been better if they had made only the PC to be able to be a blood mage to be honest if they were going this route. This is probably why they did that in DA:2 with disabling second specializations for non-PC characters because it makes them seem more like their own character at that point -- which is what party members are supposed to be like -- other characters/players in the campaign. It's kind of like in Dragon Age 2, if you argue with Anders a lot as a mage, he would yell at you in frustration that you should be more understanding because you are a mage, this helps with the role playing experience because the game is respecting the fact that your character is 1) A mage 2) Arguing against Anders' pro-mage claims 3) Goes far enough to side with the templars.
I think you're over-simplifying the Wynne thing. She could learn the specialization (and gain the stat bonuses) without ever learning or using the actual abilities in the tree. That could be evidence that she's studied blood magic (because she opposes it so, and desires to understand her foes) without having used it.
Having this level of control over the companions allows the companions to be much more interesting.
You're also equating the player with the player's character. That the player controls a character doesn't make that character any less his own character. It just allows the player to make that self be different playthrough to playthrough. In fact, I argue that this already happens anyway, given the NPC's fixed reactions to different protagonists. The only way the companions would react exactly the same way to a different event is if the companions are themselves different.
The DA2 example has advantages, yes, but it ties us to a very narrow range of behaviours and opinions. What if I approve of Anders's pro-mage opinions, but I think he's being reckless by talking openly about them?
I get what you're saying here, but it only works in independent campaigns. It doesn't work when you have sequels that specifically do things that work against established player canon. Using the blood mage Wynne, it would like if the next game basically said "Wynne has never used blood magic ever." And all of the DA:O companions agreed with this statement. It'd feel like the game was disrespecting the fact that you made Wynne a blood mage.
1. I don't think it does at all. It means that the DAO companions won't acknowledge her blood magic. Why is that? I find that an interesting question.
2. It wouldn't matter anyway, since you're not playing the Warden in the next game, and your next character has no idea what actually happened. Unless you break character to worry about it, you'd never even notice.
3. I don't think we need continuity across games. I think not having it would really free up the writers to offer divergent paths without having to worry about how to accommodate them in subsequent games.
As for it being a narrative or not? It IS a narrative. Completed or not. It's a plot that you have influence on. This is a common element in visual novels for instance, it's definitely a story, but you get choices throughout the game to affect how the story goes. Same thing here.
Visual novels have almost nothing in common with roleplaying games. I think a CRPG should strive to emulate the gameplay experience of a tabletop RPG, but without the need for other players.
What was done with Leliana, keeping the original point in mind, would be like if you rescued Ashley at Virmire, and the game always said that Kaidan lived. It begs the question of "why have this even able to happen if you're not going to respect what the player did later on down the line?" RPG sequels are basically the equivalent to having pen and paper sessions that take place in the same universe but as a different campaign. Thus, any decisions that a player made in them should still exist in that universe. I don't think your point is ill made, I think it's just not being used in a case where it can rightly apply.
It would make my character wonder why people thought Kaidan lived. And if Kaidan actually appeared, my character would wonder who he was (if confident that Kaidan had died - this new guy is clearly an impostor) or wonder how he survived.
All this confusion and uncertainty opens up new roleplaying opportunities.
Retour en haut
