154 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Luminous]

If people want to be able to play that way, why shouldn't they?

I never said they couldn't or was against it, I was just explaining the thought process as I understood it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see the problem, or why we should care how these people play. If the options are more clearly defined and the player is made aware of what will be said or what will happen, what difference does it make to people who don't play like this? I guess my confusion here is that I'm not sure if people want a dialogue roulette game or not.

That's what conversations are like. You never really know how someone is going to take what you say, and a simple three-spoked wheel doesn't offer enough nuance to capture what the player wants his character to say.

So I say we ditch the icons and predictable order entirely and let the player assign intent as he sees fit. That offers a wider range of options at each wheel event, and still allows players who want to play consistent characters do so. But now there are more than 2 possible consistent characters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see the problem with tying a line's intent with its position on the dialogue wheel. Is the concern that some people will just mindlessly select an option?

The line and the intent shouldn't be tied together at all. We should select those things separately.

[AlanC9]

So I say we ditch the icons and predictable order entirely and let the player assign intent as he sees fit.

That's not consistent with a voiced PC, though. I get that you don't like that, but it isn't going away.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's not consistent with a voiced PC, though. I get that you don't like that, but it isn't going away.

The voice doesn't have to have anything to do with the intent.