154 réponses à ce sujet

[Helios969]

Well, the D&D alignment system had detractors for almost as long as D&D existed. I was there.

Are you sure?   I don't recall seeing you at any of our conventions

 

D&D system is readily picked apart...all it would do is overcomplicate dialogue.  I liked DA2's system best.  Not the friendship/rivalry aspect but having 3 distinctly different responses based on your character's demeanor...and locking in relatively early in the game.  I'm not sure we need a morality system like paragon/renegade...at least not visible, (although I'd like to keep the interrupts.)

[Cyberstrike nTo]

The morality system is outdated, instead of having paragon and renegade, improve upon the DA:I dialogue wheel. Make choices context based rather than good or bad. For example, have choices be: stoic, mad, confused, attack, relaxed, humorous etc. 

 

QFT. 

[PhroXenGold]

The morality system is outdated, instead of having paragon and renegade, improve upon the DA:I dialogue wheel. Make choices context based rather than good or bad. For example, have choices be: stoic, mad, confused, attack, relaxed, humorous etc. 

 

While I certainly agree with fleshing out the dialogue options into more than just red/blue, when it comes to the overarching philosophies by which a character can act, particularly regarding major decisions, I feel the Paragon/Renegade split works pretty well. If we take it as a given that, as with recent BW games, a full on "evil" character is out of the question - that one way or other, you are trying to save the day - then splitting that between doing the "right" thing to serve the immediate good (Paragon) and doing potentially "less good" actions in order to serve the greater good (Renegade), combined with a respect/disrespect for authority respectively actually covers things rather well.

 

There is clearly plenty of room for nuance between the two, and most believable characters would be somewhere in this space in the middle, so rewarding people for going all in on one or the other in the way ME2 did is an awful piece of design (let alone the sheer retardedness of the scars....), and not every decision should be between a paragon choice and a renegade one (e.g. Legion's loyalty mission should've had both choices being renegade), but keeping track of which side of that divide you tend to lie on (whether visibly on your stats screen or in in a hidden variable that you can only infer the value of from how things happen in game), and having other characters react differently to you depending on it (as opposed to directly affecting your character's abilities) is not a bad system at all IMO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem is that the alignments are defined by the nature of the universe itself. There is no debate about what's good. What's good is predefined. Now, sure, players and DMs can add some grey into themselves - and I would always encourage them to do so - and people can misunderstand things and make mistakes as to what an alignment means, but the underlying system simply doesn't allow for anyone putting their own interpretations and beliefs into it, as good and evil (and law and chaos for that matter) don't depend on opinions or perceptions, they are absolute, rigidly defined properties of the universe.

They're rigid properties of the universe, but those definitions aren't available to the players. The alignment definitions in the rulebooks are insufficiently precise to stave off arguments.

Does evil require malice? That question alone could occupy me for hours.

[RZIBARA]

Get rid of renegade and paragon. Make the dialogue options realistic and not just = nice vs neutral vs assh*le

 

Also, make sure there are no clear win conversation dialogue options (would be gone with lack of morality anyways), make it so to get on someones good side you need to know what to say based on their personality or given info etc.

 

Basically, just make the dialogue less black and white

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eliminate the persuasion options as "I WIN" buttons.

Persuasion should fail some of the time. Its success shouldn't be predictable.

More mechanics need RNG, and persuasion is one of them.

[PhroXenGold]

They're rigid properties of the universe, but those definitions aren't available to the players. The alignment definitions in the rulebooks are insufficiently precise to stave off arguments.

Does evil require malice? That question alone could occupy me for hours.

 

Yeah, the rulebooks don't cover every situation and thus leave a degree of grey, but that is due to the rulebooks simply being insufficient. The actual worlds being described by the rulebooks doesn't have those things.

 

If you're in D&D then the answer to that is a clear no. Evil actions make you evil (or at least they did when I last spent a significant amount of time reading source books back in 3e). Of course, I think it's a great question and likewise, I think there is huge scope for discussion on it. Which is why I hate D&D's system. Within the setting there are no such debates. There are debates among players. But not among characters. And if you're in doubt, find someone who has committed such acts and cast "detect alignment" on them. And there's your answer.

 

If you took the basic system of 9 alignments and took out the lore that makes them into absolutes, if you make them a matter of how people are generally perceived, with different perceptions from different cultures and indeed people, if I could be chaotic good to one person and chaotic evil to another, I wouldn't have a problem. I think they are a decent way of describing peoples actions and beliefs - a simplification, sure, but a useful one (in the same way I mentioned I'm OK with the paragon.renegade split ftom ME). But they way they work in the D&D settings , where they aren't about perception and belief, but rigid rules inherent to the universe (so I am chaotic good, regardless of what anyone who doesn't like me might say, and I can actually prove it with magic), is, to me, a horrible design for an RPG (or frankly any fictional setting regardless of what that setting is being used for, but for an RPG it's particularity bad as it prevents any reasonable in universe exploration of morality and it's perception, malleability and so on via the characters we are playing).

Modifié par PhroXenGold, 12 novembre 2015 - 02:55 .

[Ieldra]

I've mentioned the paraphrasing as the primary problem with the wheel in my earlier post. I see discussion has switched to other aspects, so here's my take on it:

 

Morality indicators like Paragon/Renegade are too restrictive because in that case the story makes the decision about what is good for you and you can't disagree. They have to go completely.

 

I rather like DAI's system with attitude indicators plus perks. You can be stoic, sad, aggressive etc... and you can have additional options from several different knowledge perks. Combine this with "show complete text on hovering over an option", and you'll have a rather good character interaction tool.

[Wulfram]

I've never had a problem ignoring what the game thinks is Paragon or Renegade.

Though I'd like to see more occasions where you can choose the dialogue to go with the choice. Its annoying if your Paragon starts getting all dark and menacing, or your renegade suddenly turns into a space hippy, just because you picked a choice that the game thinks is aligned one way or another.

[Iakus]

They started designing mechanical benefits/penalties around the morality system since Kotor? Before that yeah you could make a evil or chaotic statement but it didn't get you evil points. The paraphrase system while apparently popular in testing i think is the real issue as it reduces your choices to the mechanics not what is the most fitting comment for your character.

Actually, yeah.

 

The Bhaalspawn's powers developed based on your alignment.  

 

Also, "reputation" affected purchase prices, how certain quests progressed, and low rep would get guards sicced on you. 

[Iakus]

Eliminate the persuasion options as "I WIN" buttons.

Persuasion should fail some of the time. Its success shouldn't be predictable.

More mechanics need RNG, and persuasion is one of them.

I don't know about "should fail some of the time".  If it was random, it would just encourage save scumming (not that there's anything especially wrong with that.  But it would defeat the purpose for which it was meant)

 

And autofails would just be annoying.  People would complain they've been "gunshipped'

 

I think a better idea would be "persuasion shouldn't always be clearly the best option"  

[Iakus]

Anyway DAI's system, using emotion icons to give an idea as to how you will react is the best use of the wheel I've seen thus far.

 

That and it used more than two spokes

[Wulfram]

I don't think RNG works for persuasion. Hanging too much on a single roll makes things too random.

I'd rather avoid the Persuade = win by having the player be required to select the right argument when the persuade task is difficult. Or perhaps enough of the right arguments during the conversation - give the player some margin to realise things aren't going well and switch tack. Admittedly this will likely end up being an auto-win on subsequent playthroughs, but I think thats acceptable.

[Iakus]

I don't think RNG works for persuasion. Hanging too much on a single roll makes things too random.

I'd rather avoid the Persuade = win by having the player be required to select the right argument when the persuade task is difficult. Or perhaps enough of the right arguments during the conversation - give the player some margin to realise things aren't going well and switch tack. Admittedly this will likely end up being an auto-win on subsequent playthroughs, but I think thats acceptable.

That sounds like DXHR's conversation minigame.  You have to pick the right arguments to make based on the personality of the person you are trying to persuade.  And having a particular aug can give you clues on their reactions

[Wulfram]

That sounds like DXHR's conversation minigame.  You have to pick the right arguments to make based on the personality of the person you are trying to persuade.  And having a particular aug can give you clues on their reactions

More or less, yes. Though I think it made it too much about the personality type, not enough about understanding the situation and what the other person wants.

[PhroXenGold]

I've mentioned the paraphrasing as the primary problem with the wheel in my earlier post. I see discussion has switched to other aspects, so here's my take on it:

 

Morality indicators like Paragon/Renegade are too restrictive because in that case the story makes the decision about what is good for you and you can't disagree. They have to go completely.

 

I rather like DAI's system with attitude indicators plus perks. You can be stoic, sad, aggressive etc... and you can have additional options from several different knowledge perks. Combine this with "show complete text on hovering over an option", and you'll have a rather good character interaction tool.

 

I agree, but I will add that tone/attitude icons should be added to every line. In DA:I, if I was saying something because of my race, or my knowledge, I didn't have any indication of the tone I would say it in. Which is way worse than not knowing the exact words.

[LexXxich]

Since it's unlikely that voiced protagonist is going away, players are going to need as much info about what their character is going to say as at all possible. Which means full phrases available for reading before you select a response, and tone indication, with [Tone] or an icon.
Player shouldn't have to resort to guessing their own character's disposition during the dialogue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah, the rulebooks don't cover every situation and thus leave a degree of grey, but that is due to the rulebooks simply being insufficient. The actual worlds being described by the rulebooks doesn't have those things.

If you're in D&D then the answer to that is a clear no. Evil actions make you evil. Of course, I think it's a great question and likewise, I think there is huge scope for discussion on it. Which is why I hate D&D's system. Within the setting there are no such debates. There are debates among players. But not among characters. And if you're in doubt, find someone who has committed such and cast "detect alignment" on them. And there's your answer.

Alignments aren't straitjackets. One evil act doesn't make you evil. Even characters who are defined by their alignment (Paladins, some Priests) are governed by the definition favoured by their deities, and deities can disagree.

If there were no disagreement among the characters, then there would have to be no disagreement among the players, as the players are making decisions on behalf if the characters.

"Evil actions are evil" is tautological nonsense.

If you took the basic system of 9 alignments and took out the lore that makes them into absolutes, I wouldn't have a problem. I think they are a decent way of describing peoples actions and beliefs - a simplification, sure, but a useful one. But they way they work in the D&D settings is, to me, a horrible design for an RPG.

I'm only looking at the alignments.

I would further argue that knowing someone's alignment tells you very little about them. I would further argue that most actions are neutral.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Since it's unlikely that voiced protagonist is going away, players are going to need as much info about what their character is going to say as at all possible. Which means full phrases available for reading before you select a response, and tone indication, with [Tone] or an icon.
Player shouldn't have to resort to guessing their own character's disposition during the dialogue.

The voiced protagonist should be optional. We should be able to mute it without muting the other voices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree, but I will add that tone/attitude icons should be added to every line. In DA:I, if I was saying something because of my race, or my knowledge, I didn't have any indication of the tone I would say it in. Which is way worse than not knowing the exact words.

I disagree. I don’t like the tone indicators, because they're imprecisely defined.

I also don't like having different tones at all of the content of the lines are substantively different. I shouldn't have to choose between saying the thing I want to say and using the tone I want to use.

The voiced protagonist is just awful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't know about "should fail some of the time". If it was random, it would just encourage save scumming (not that there's anything especially wrong with that. But it would defeat the purpose for which it was meant)

I'd be okay with that.

If the odds were predictable, players would stop trying longshot persuasion options to avoid the reload annoyance. And, as you say, persuasion shouldn't always be the best option.

And autofails would just be annoying. People would complain they've been "gunshipped'

I disagree. Some people can't be persuaded. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be permitted to try.

I think a better idea would be "persuasion shouldn't always be clearly the best option"

We should have all of these things.

[timebean]

Personally, I thought the renegade/paragon set-up in ME2 was terrible. Why should I be blocked out of ways to handle situations becuase I pulled my guns on a few jerks earlier in the game, but was always cool to my crew?  Left me with a bunch of grey to choose from, which was stupid.  Diaouge should never be greyed out based on prior conversations. It is a cheap way to do choice/conseqeunce and is more aggravating than anything else.

 

While I liked the DAI plethora of chcoies (happy, sad, angry, stoic, etc), I still found it difficult to really roleplay becuase many of the dialouge choices were exactyl the same...they just sounded different (ie, happy yes, sad yes, stoic yes, angry yes).  Seemed like we had more choice, but it was sham.

 

So...I guess I would want many choices in the dialouge wheel that are actually different in terms of meaning, not just tone.  I also want to be able to choose dialouge based on situation and not worry about not being able to be a jerk later just becuase I have been nice previously.  Reputation should be based on my accomplishements, not my dialouge tone.

 

In terms of implmentation...why do we need a wheel at all?  Why not do it like it was done in DAO...full sentences....where the tone was pretty apparant. The only difference is that you have a voiced protaganist who gets to say the line.  Simple.  Easy.  Role-playing.  Yay!

[Iakus]

 
I disagree. Some people can't be persuaded. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be permitted to try.
 

Sure, but they shouldn't mask it in "this is a persuasion check.  No you can't succeed at it"

 

It should simply be normal dialogue.

 

Actually, I like how the plan for Torment: Tides of Numenera where they are encouraging people not to save scum by saying even if you "fail" a check, it simply alters the direction of the narrative, maybe adds some complications.  One alpha footage scene shows you could still try and talk these bounty hunters down even while engaged in combat with them

[AlanC9]

I would further argue that knowing someone's alignment tells you very little about them. I would further argue that most actions are neutral.

That was the upshot of a lot of the arguments in the 80s. Alignment didn't do much damage if you kept it from being meaningful in the game world. But if alignment isn't meaningful, why have alignment?

[wright1978]

That sounds like DXHR's conversation minigame.  You have to pick the right arguments to make based on the personality of the person you are trying to persuade.  And having a particular aug can give you clues on their reactions

 

Yeah i like the sounds of that. Definitely not a fan of the notion of persuasion being a random lottery dice roll.