Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3

[Merin]

Sylvius, isn't it amazing? I mean, you expect this kind of push back from Upsettingshorts and others defending the direction BioWare had taken with games like Dragon Age 2 -

 

you wouldn't expect people backing Obsidian and "old school" cRPG's in the IE model (from leads who love games like Wasteland and Fallout or created games like Fallout and ToEE) to be arguing for more graphics, more voice, more cinematics, and less player control over their characters.

 

I guess I was wrong - the BSN was already here.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll give you an example; You choose to do something to the Companion A, later Companion B pulls you to the side and asks why did you do it and game gives you several options for the motivation, and depending on what you choose, it affects your relationship with the Companion B but also potentially Companion B's relationship with Companion A. See now?

That the PC claims a specific motivation doesn't necessarily make that the PC's actual motivation.

 

The PC can lie. The PC can always lie. We don't need a [LIE] tag on a dialogue option to speak falsely.

What about the writer wanting to show several potential motivations for the player character to choose from and building up the character they have written or do you think you are better coming up with them than MCA for his character, for example?

It's not his character. It's my character. It has to be my character. I need to know everything about my character's state of mind from the very first instance he steps into the game world so that I can correctly interpret events from his point of view.

 

That's what roleplaying is: perceiving the world through someone else's eyes. We can't do that without full control over that character's perspective.

Edit and addendum: Now, this is important - they have to show the motivations in the context of the gameworld how it (the world itself, characters etc) react to the motivations of the player character or otherwise dealing with the whole theme is moot because there would not be points of reference to which compare player character's motivations and actions vs. the gameworld how the writers want.

How can anything in the game world ever react to a character's motives? Nothing in the real world ever reacts to your motives, because your motives only exist inside your head. No one can see them. Therefore, no one can react to them.

 

A CRPG is about giving me a detailed setting (filled with interesting characters and interesting events going on - that's the authored narrative), into which I can release the character I've designed to find out what he does and how he deals with those events.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sylvius, isn't it amazing? I mean, you expect this kind of push back from Upsettingshorts and others defending the direction BioWare had taken with games like Dragon Age 2 -

 

you wouldn't expect people backing Obsidian and "old school" cRPG's in the IE model (from leads who love games like Wasteland and Fallout or created games like Fallout and ToEE) to be arguing for more graphics, more voice, more cinematics, and less player control over their characters.

I'm not too surprised, actually. First, KotOR2 is very heavy-handed in its definition of The Exile. That's one Obsidian title where it's very clear that the player doesn't get to decide who the PC is (and the game suffers badly as a result, I think).

 

Also, the many discussions I've had with people about the extent to which KotOR defines the PC - I think not at all, others think very much - has highlighted a perspective on identity that I'd not previously considered. Some people seem to think that you are always fundamentally you, even if you don't remember what you've done. But if you could do them at some point, then that will always define the sort of person you can be. Basically, that a person can never escape his past, even if that personality ceases to exist and he gets a new one rebuilt with magic. It's a sort of strong rejection of dualism. I've also seen this from people who didn't like Torment - they think that TNO's past defines him such that he's a horrible person who isn't fun to play.

 

I obviously disagree - I see no necessary connection between the person I am now and the person I was before (particularly in cases of amnesia like KotOR and Torment) - but this perspective makes KotOR2 work really well as a game (where I think it fails badly). And people who like the KotOR2 approach would absolutely want the PC's character defined by the writers.

[Merin]

I'm not too surprised, actually. First, KotOR2 is very heavy-handed in its definition of The Exile. That's one Obsidian title where it's very clear that the player doesn't get to decide who the PC is (and the game suffers badly as a result, I think).

 

Also, the many discussions I've had with people about the extent to which KotOR defines the PC - I think not at all, others think very much - has highlighted a perspective on identity that I'd not previously considered. Some people seem to think that you are always fundamentally you, even if you don't remember what you've done. But if you could do them at some point, then that will always define the sort of person you can be. Basically, that a person can never escape his past, even if that personality ceases to exist and he gets a new one rebuilt with magic. It's a sort of strong rejection of dualism. I've also seen this from people who didn't like Torment - they think that TNO's past defines him such that he's a horrible person who isn't fun to play.

 

I obviously disagree - I see no necessary connection between the person I am now and the person I was before (particularly in cases of amnesia like KotOR and Torment) - but this perspective makes KotOR2 work really well as a game (where I think it fails badly). And people who like the KotOR2 approach would absolutely want the PC's character defined by the writers.

 

I am surprised, considering how much BioWare bashing is done and how much they blame BioWare for all that is bad in cRPG's. There are many things that BioWare has created and pushed that I don't agree with, and people here now seem to be supporting it as strongly as people at BSN.

• That cRPGs are stories first. Story is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree, but BioWare champions this concept
  
• That cRPGs are about choice and consequence. Choice and consequence is a defining characteristic of cRPGs. I disagree, but BioWare champions this
  
• That cRPGs are about creating one character, a game writer's character that you help shape but it isn't yours. No creating a party - you recruit companions. cRPGs don't have to be this way, I can play it and enjoy it but it's not necessary and not my favorite. But it's BioWare's model and now seems to be "the way."
  

I'm getting it both barrels right now and it is hilarious. I'm now simultaneously too old school AND a huge fan of BioWare ruining cRPGs.

 

It's getting to the point I should break out the popcorn.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[Malcador]

Did Merin actually call someone out for playing 'King' of the forum ? Heh.

[jarpie]

I'll try and address as much as possible in one post - and that means not hitting most of what people are saying, as that'd be nigh impossible. I'll do my best to, *ahem*, know what to show and what to leave to the imagination.

 

How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, and make player to react to what happens in the game world and show the effects on the player character and his dialogue to what happens in the game? And what about gameworld and NPCs reacting on what you do, just the actions? Don't you think that if they write the dialogues where you can choose motivation behind your actions, they can then branch it out on NPCs and the gameworld that how they react both the action and the motivation?

 

I think a major problem here is context, once more. "Choice and consequence" is a term for games that means something kind of specific.

 

Clearly any video game lets you make "choices" if you want to delve into semantics - in Space Invaders, do you move the cannon left or right, do you fire now or wait a second then fire - with consequences being do you get hit by the enemy fire or survive, and does your shot hit or miss.

 

But for role-playing games it tends to mean story and world changing choices... not just which load out of weapons you have or do you dodge left or right.

 

So, clearly, in a game you need to have reactivity to the player's actions - else you might as well watch a movie passively. But when I say "choice and consequences" (and I think when most devs talk about it) they mean "player decides to save NPC A or NPC B, or player decides to join faction A or faction B, or player gives resources to the town guard swordsmen or to the town guard archers" - the kind of "here is a list of options which will decide where the story goes next"

 

So, if we can get past the straw man of saying I'm saying the game shouldn't react to you, we can move forward.

 

When I said "choice and consequence are nice in cRPGs but aren't essential", I meant story choices and dialog choices. cRPGs existed for years before these became conventions, and even after games started experimenting with them it didn't become a norm until the late 90's You can have great cRPGs (Wizard's Crown, Knights of Legend, all the Gold Box games) without any real story choices and no dialog choices.

 

 

I don't scale down to anyone's level so I try not to make any snarky comments as you did basicly saying that I don't understand what Choices and Consequences mean...real classy Merin, real classy as I was being polite even though we have different opinions.

 

Choices such as you mentioned either to save NPC A or NPC B has to have a real consequences, such as what the said NPC does, how it affects your character and how it affects the story/sub-story.

 

For example since you didn't save NPC A and he was right-hand man of local leader such as a duke, he might send hired mercenaries after you, demand explanation, demand some sort of compensation, or something else what writer has come up with, and it might affect how the story progresses since you didn't save the NPC A thus not getting help from his master, and since you saved NPC B, he joins your group and you get help from his master who might be local thieves' guild leader which gives you different kind of help and takes you to the completely other route on how the game progresses, maybe different set of quests to progress in the story.

 

Those are the consequences, the more consequences vary for the different options, the better C&C is - such as taking you to the completely different route, such as closing one venue and opening another.

 

And by the way, C&C in Bioware's games are horribly done and are completely just fluff "choices and consequences" and no matter you choose the end result is the same, if you'd played Alpha Protocol or Fallout: New Vegas you'd know what I'm talking about...or understood what those different choices do.

 

If you can't see the difference between Obsidian's games and Bioware's I can't help you, and since you cant keep this civil, I dont see point in debating with you since you resort on making snarky comments and ignoring most of the points I made. Good day, sir *tips his fedora*

 

And Sylvius the Mad, you are way out of the ballpark on what single-player CRPG is thus I don't even see point in debating with you since you obviously are looking something completely different what Obsidian's games are.

[Lurky]

The game should react to my character's actions, yes. My character's motives, though, aren't knowable outside my character's head, so it would be unreasonable to expect the game to react to them.

 

Just wanted to chime in to say that I disagree with this assumption. What if you want the world and the NPCs to react to your motivations? If you don't state them in the game, you lose this dimension of NPC interactions. Granted, it's very difficult to cover all motivations, and not having your preferred option sucks, but if the conversation is well done the options should be broad enough to make this a non-issue.

 

And just like NPCs should react to the player's actions, I think it can be interesting to explore their reactions to their motivations. Maybe you just hate the guts of that character and want to make patently clear to him that you did what you did just to piss him off; I damn well expect a reaction in that case. Or maybe you simply want to have a conversation about souls or something about the world with the NPCs; playing off your motivations and your world views with theirs can give you a good insight into the characters and affect your influence with them. Going further, this motivation choice could even be recorded in your savefile, so that the characters could bring it up later when it's relevant; for instance, if you do something that strays from what you said earlier the character could call you out on it, which a) would be very unexpected for the player, and b) could let you build even more complexity into your motivations (were you lying earlier? did your character's views change? why?).

 

Yes, this is very difficult to pull off, because it pushes the writers to really think outside of the box to cover everything; that's why it's usually simplified or not included at all. You might say "if it's going to be simplified and lose the options I like I'd rather have nothing at all and fill the blanks in my head". I say "when it's done well, it can really add to the immersion in the game, and make you feel like you're actually part of this group of people". Is it feasible to add in something like this in PE? Probably not, but I'd certainly like to see it at least in a limited matter

 

 

This is resembling a lot the arguments for and against romances, don't you think? The people for them argue that "it really adds to the game", while the antis argue that "it's better if it's not there". Just like you believe that C&C regarding PC motivations shouldn't be there (because it can't cover the motivations of your PC properly, I understand?), some people believe that it's better if romances aren't there (because they cannot be done properly in a videogame without making serious sacrifices of character diversity and branching interactions, as well as requiring too much development and story focus to do them justice). I hope that this lets you understand the position against romances better

 

 

 

Also, you guys have made several posts since I started writing this. Damn I am slow a slow typer

Edited October 25, 2012 by Lurky

[Amentep]

I obviously disagree - I see no necessary connection between the person I am now and the person I was before (particularly in cases of amnesia like KotOR and Torment) - but this perspective makes KotOR2 work really well as a game (where I think it fails badly). And people who like the KotOR2 approach would absolutely want the PC's character defined by the writers.

 

I'm not sure that I really understand your point here; there's a difference between someone's past being important to them vs being important to other people. I never got a feeling that the PC in KotR2 was straight-jacketed by the past ("you are always fundamentally you, even if you don't remember what you've done"), only that the past was always there and those people who knew the past would react to that, rather than who you are. Or am I missing your point?

[Merin]

I don't scale down to anyone's level so I try not to make any snarky comments as you did basicly saying that I don't understand what Choices and Consequences mean...real classy Merin, real classy as I was being polite even though we have different opinions.

 

(this is called poisoning the well, btb, what you are trying)

 

Here's the thing, you did a nice edit job to make it look like I was addressing you, and only you, directly - I wasn't. Let's take another look at what you call my "snarky comments" that say that "jarpie doesn't understand C&C," hence being "real classy" -

 

I'll try and address as much as possible in one post - and that means not hitting most of what people are saying, as that'd be nigh impossible. I'll do my best to, *ahem*, know what to show and what to leave to the imagination.

 

Shadenuat[/b]' timestamp='1351155679' post='1262174']

Choice and consequence are nice, I like them, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be in a cRPG. But they aren't essential.

If you're using a game as your deliverer of story, you should know your tools of trade and make the best out of them. I think *that* is a sign of good story-teller.

 

jarpie[/b]' timestamp='1351168079' post='1262278']

How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, and make player to react to what happens in the game world and show the effects on the player character and his dialogue to what happens in the game? And what about gameworld and NPCs reacting on what you do, just the actions? Don't you think that if they write the dialogues where you can choose motivation behind your actions, they can then branch it out on NPCs and the gameworld that how they react both the action and the motivation?

 

I think a major problem here is context, once more. "Choice and consequence" is a term for games that means something kind of specific.

 

Clearly any video game lets you make "choices" if you want to delve into semantics - in Space Invaders, do you move the cannon left or right, do you fire now or wait a second then fire - with consequences being do you get hit by the enemy fire or survive, and does your shot hit or miss.

 

But for role-playing games it tends to mean story and world changing choices... not just which load out of weapons you have or do you dodge left or right.

 

So, clearly, in a game you need to have reactivity to the player's actions - else you might as well watch a movie passively. But when I say "choice and consequences" (and I think when most devs talk about it) they mean "player decides to save NPC A or NPC B, or player decides to join faction A or faction B, or player gives resources to the town guard swordsmen or to the town guard archers" - the kind of "here is a list of options which will decide where the story goes next"

 

So, if we can get past the straw man of saying I'm saying the game shouldn't react to you, we can move forward.

 

When I said "choice and consequence are nice in cRPGs but aren't essential", I meant story choices and dialog choices. cRPGs existed for years before these became conventions, and even after games started experimenting with them it didn't become a norm until the late 90's You can have great cRPGs (Wizard's Crown, Knights of Legend, all the Gold Box games) without any real story choices and no dialog choices.

 

So, what you took as me being patronizing to you was really me trying to clarify that I meant that story and dialog choices aren't essential for a cRPG. I was responding to a bunch of people, generally, but two people specifically -

 

1: to Shadenuat, explaining that I understood that the medium was video games and that video games need player input, that I meant choices for story and dialog weren't necessary for a cRPG, and that you still had reactions to player choices in a game, using the medium, without having to have story and dialog choices.... that's a ramble, but largely, I was describing C&C to Shadenuat, whom probably DOES know what it means (or might not) but I meant to show I knew the difference and was speaking on one and not the other.

 

2: to jarpie, responding to How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, by saying that cRPGs don't need story and dialog choices to be good or to be cRPGs at all.

 

Two people I was responding too. Showing two people I was making a clear distinction, and that when I said "reaction", the context was choice and consequenco player reactions, not all the ways a game can react to player input.

 

Not insulting either of you.

 

...

 

And now, will you accept that or add "I was snarkly patronizing you" to the list of "truths" about me - like my BioWare advocacy, my demanding romance mini-games, and my hating your freedoms?

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[Malcador]

I really hope there's a romance with a NPC with a martyr complex.

[kenup]

-I want LaRPing-

-I have a high opinion of myself-

Ok, you two really need to learn the difference between a cRPG story with a set narrative and LaRP. And Merin, you never show anything to improve mine, or others' opinion of you. All you say is "Yes, I can", "I want this and I'm right just because", "I do not like bioware's romances, but I support their writers" and other opinions presented as facts. You haven't proven anything as to how "romance" minigames are good for the game. We point out your mistake, you call ad hominem while you are the one doing that. The best you can do is point to wikipedia articles, which is really not a good place to cite to say the least. You are just too proud to accept losing, and insults or pointing at your mistakes really hit the nerve.

 

It's really annoying having to repeat myself. All those things you posted affect the characters or the plot. When they affect the plot, they are plot devices, used by the narrative. When they affect character progression, that progression affects the plot. MacGuffins are ONLY used to advance the plot at some point and nowhere else.

 

Writers are not there for you to fantasize the story and your character's motivations in your head. If the writer leaves the protagonist's feelings and motivations to the player's imagination, they have failed at making a believable character and rationalize their choices.

 

I'm completely serious and I mean no offence, but you need to play ME1-3, Skyrim, Oblivion, DA2; they are perfect for the both of you. The characters are devoid of motivations, so you can roleplay as you like. The story has no major reaction, if any at all, to player choicem it's linear and overall they are perfect for what you describe.

 

Now excuse me cause I got a life and have to sleep at some point.

[Amentep]

The game should react to my character's actions, yes. My character's motives, though, aren't knowable outside my character's head, so it would be unreasonable to expect the game to react to them.

 

Just wanted to chime in to say that I disagree with this assumption. What if you want the world and the NPCs to react to your motivations? If you don't state them in the game, you lose this dimension of NPC interactions. Granted, it's very difficult to cover all motivations, and not having your preferred option sucks, but if the conversation is well done the options should be broad enough to make this a non-issue.

 

Arguably he's right, the game can't know the players motive only react to his choices. The game can only react to what you do not why you did it (which is why the old "donate to a church / whack a villager" reputation meter in the IE games was kind of wonky).

 

However, there is the question that if the game only reacts to what you do under appropriate understandings (for the game) of what you did, then is it essentially indistinguishable from understanding what your motivations were (or at least render the motivations moot) in context of the game / NPC.

 

To use an example, in FONV, in Nipton when you talk to Vulpes Inculta if you express outrage at what he's done in dialogue he'll say something to the effect that if the player feels strongly about it to attack him and the Legionnaires. Lets say you attack them and win.

 

From the games perspective it doesn't matter WHY Vulpes was attacked, or even that Vulpes invited me to do it. There way its handled - Ceaser's Legion sees me as a hostile - is regardless of my motivation.

 

In essence the motivation behind the action is rendered irrelevant to the reaction the game gives the player and yet still reactive to what the player did.

[Merin]

The game should react to my character's actions, yes. My character's motives, though, aren't knowable outside my character's head, so it would be unreasonable to expect the game to react to them.

 

Just wanted to chime in to say that I disagree with this assumption. What if you want the world and the NPCs to react to your motivations? If you don't state them in the game, you lose this dimension of NPC interactions. Granted, it's very difficult to cover all motivations, and not having your preferred option sucks, but if the conversation is well done the options should be broad enough to make this a non-issue.

 

Arguably he's right, the game can't know the players motive only react to his choices. The game can only react to what you do not why you did it (which is why the old "donate to a church / whack a villager" reputation meter in the IE games was kind of wonky).

 

However, there is the question that if the game only reacts to what you do under appropriate understandings (for the game) of what you did, then is it essentially indistinguishable from understanding what your motivations were (or at least render the motivations moot) in context of the game / NPC.

 

To use an example, in FONV, in Nipton when you talk to Vulpes Inculta if you express outrage at what he's done in dialogue he'll say something to the effect that if the player feels strongly about it to attack him and the Legionnaires. Lets say you attack them and win.

 

From the games perspective it doesn't matter WHY Vulpes was attacked, or even that Vulpes invited me to do it. There way its handled - Ceaser's Legion sees me as a hostile - is regardless of my motivation.

 

In essence the motivation behind the action is rendered irrelevant to the reaction the game gives the player and yet still reactive to what the player did.

 

Game reactions to the player's character don't have to depend on the player's character's motivations for what the PC did...

but the game really should NOT dictate what the PC's motivations were, either.

 

I think that's the difference.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[jarpie]

 

(this is called poisoning the well, btb, what you are trying)

 

Here's the thing, you did a nice edit job to make it look like I was addressing you, and only you, directly - I wasn't. Let's take another look at what you call my "snarky comments" that say that "jarpie doesn't understand C&C," hence being "real classy" -

 

So, what you took as me being patronizing to you was really me trying to clarify that I meant that story and dialog choices aren't essential for a cRPG. I was responding to a bunch of people, generally, but two people specifically -

 

1: to Shadenuat, explaining that I understood that the medium was video games and that video games need player input, that I meant choices for story and dialog weren't necessary for a cRPG, and that you still had reactions to player choices in a game, using the medium, without having to have story and dialog choices.... that's a ramble, but largely, I was describing C&C to Shadenuat, whom probably DOES know what it means (or might not) but I meant to show I knew the difference and was speaking on one and not the other.

 

2: to jarpie, responding to How can the developers write meaningful alternate routes, choices & consequences or options if game wouldn't solicit responses and reactions from the player, by saying that cRPGs don't need story and dialog choices to be good or to be cRPGs at all.

 

Two people I was responding too. Showing two people I was making a clear distinction, and that when I said "reaction", the context was choice and consequenco player reactions, not all the ways a game can react to player input.

 

Not insulting either of you.

 

...

 

And now, will you accept that or add "I was snarkly patronizing you" to the list of "truths" about me - like my BioWare advocacy, my demanding romance mini-games, and my hating your freedoms?

 

Maybe so but I'm still done with you as you conviniently ignored 75% of my post, and the points I was making, there's no point even trying to have a proper debate where both sides exchange properly done arguments, if the other side completely ignores what you say.

 

I'm not putting you on ignore but consider this: We could've had a great debate where both sides respects each other's views and both gaining insight on each other's views but since you again resorted on ignoring what I said that's not possible.

 

Again, Good day, sir *tips his fedora*

[Lurky]

The game should react to my character's actions, yes. My character's motives, though, aren't knowable outside my character's head, so it would be unreasonable to expect the game to react to them.

 

Just wanted to chime in to say that I disagree with this assumption. What if you want the world and the NPCs to react to your motivations? If you don't state them in the game, you lose this dimension of NPC interactions. Granted, it's very difficult to cover all motivations, and not having your preferred option sucks, but if the conversation is well done the options should be broad enough to make this a non-issue.

 

Arguably he's right, the game can't know the players motive only react to his choices. The game can only react to what you do not why you did it (which is why the old "donate to a church / whack a villager" reputation meter in the IE games was kind of wonky).

 

However, there is the question that if the game only reacts to what you do under appropriate understandings (for the game) of what you did, then is it essentially indistinguishable from understanding what your motivations were (or at least render the motivations moot) in context of the game / NPC.

 

I'm not sure I follow you, or if you didn't follow me. I'll try to make myself clearer just in case.

 

First off, you seem to be assuming that the game cannot react to the whys, only to the whats. You do things, but people don't know the motivations behind them. Like in real life, you can't know the motivations of many people, only react to their actions. Am I right?

 

Lose that notion. Forget it. For the sake of this discussion, imagine that the game can react to the whys.

 

The game can react to them if you input them, via dialogue. Restrictive, but it can be done. That way, if you input these whys, the game and the people of the world can react to them. And this is like in real life too. It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys. And if these people care about the whys, then giving you the option to input them in the game adds to the C&C and reactivity of the world. For the people who like reactive worlds, this is a good thing.

 

Did I make myself clear?

Edited October 25, 2012 by Lurky

[Tale]

The game can react to them if you input them, via dialogue. Restrictive, but it can be done. That way, if you input these whys, the game and the people of the world can react to them. And this is like in real life too. It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys. And if these people care about the whys, then giving you the option to input them in the game adds to the C&C and reactivity of the world. For the people who like reactive worlds, this is a good thing.

 

Did I make myself clear?

How?

 

Motivation has no external force. It can't affect the world to cause a reaction. If I save the baby from the fire because I love babies or if I save the baby because I hate the smell of burnt baby, the world will react to it the same way. With one baby that isn't burned.

 

If someone asks why I saved the baby, what I tell them isn't my motivation either. It's what I want them to believe.

[Merin]

Maybe so but I'm still done with you as you conviniently ignored 75% of my post, and the points I was making, there's no point even trying to have a proper debate where both sides exchange properly done arguments, if the other side completely ignores what you say.

 

I'm not putting you on ignore but consider this: We could've had a great debate where both sides respects each other's views and both gaining insight on each other's views but since you again resorted on ignoring what I said that's not possible.

 

Again, Good day, sir *tips his fedora*

 

Not "conveniently ignored" but there is a certain amount of forum ettiquette to follow about not creating endless, ridiculously long posts. It is nigh impossible to respond to everything. We've already had this discussion. In PM's even. Trying to play off now like I'm selectively ignoring all your points because I can't reasonably quote and answer every part of your (by your own admission) lengthy posts is absolutely unfair.

 

I've asked before for you to list a few points for us to discuss, not post a page of things to respond to. I felt the most important thing to address this time was trying to get you to understand that I wasn't trying to patronize you.

 

Often, less is more. The longer a post gets, the harder it is for everyone to read it and absorb it's entirety. Give me points to address, as long as they aren't too many at one time, and I'll debate with you.

 

I freely admit that my posts (like this one) get entirely too long. But I am trying to only respond to certain points, and to keep my points as short as I can. I FAIL at keeping them short, ALL THE TIME, but I don't berate people for not addressing every little thing I say.

 

Cherry picking and taking things out of context, however, I will call out.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Merin

[jarpie]

The game can react to them if you input them, via dialogue. Restrictive, but it can be done. That way, if you input these whys, the game and the people of the world can react to them. And this is like in real life too. It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys. And if these people care about the whys, then giving you the option to input them in the game adds to the C&C and reactivity of the world. For the people who like reactive worlds, this is a good thing.

 

Did I make myself clear?

How?

 

Motivation has no external force. It can't affect the world to cause a reaction. If I save the baby from the fire because I love babies or if I save the baby because I hate the smell of burnt baby, the world will react to it the same way. With one baby that isn't burned.

 

If someone asks why I saved the baby, what I tell them isn't my motivation either. It's what I want them to believe.

 

But that's where the themes of PE potentially come in... did you save the kid because player character loves the babies or because in some past life the owner of the soul hated smell of burnt baby?

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Just wanted to chime in to say that I disagree with this assumption. What if you want the world and the NPCs to react to your motivations?

I don't uinderstand what you're asking for. Unless the NPCs can read your mind, they can't react to your motivations. They can infer your motivations from your words and actions, and react to that, but that's already available without defining the PC's motivations in advance.

And just like NPCs should react to the player's actions, I think it can be interesting to explore their reactions to their motivations. Maybe you just hate the guts of that character and want to make patently clear to him that you did what you did just to piss him off; I damn well expect a reaction in that case.

He'd be reacting to words or actions, though, not motivations. If you make it clear that you hate him, he'll react to that expression of hatred. He can't react to the actual hatred, because he can't perceive the actual hatred.

 

As such, there's no benefit to having the writers force that hatred (or any other motivation) upon the PC.

Or maybe you simply want to have a conversation about souls or something about the world with the NPCs; playing off your motivations and your world views with theirs can give you a good insight into the characters and affect your influence with them. Going further, this motivation choice could even be recorded in your savefile, so that the characters could bring it up later when it's relevant; for instance, if you do something that strays from what you said earlier the character could call you out on it, which a) would be very unexpected for the player, and b) could let you build even more complexity into your motivations (were you lying earlier? did your character's views change? why?).

That would be great. But none of that requires that the writers limit the PC's motives in any way.

This is resembling a lot the arguments for and against romances, don't you think? The people for them argue that "it really adds to the game", while the antis argue that "it's better if it's not there". Just like you believe that C&C regarding PC motivations shouldn't be there (because it can't cover the motivations of your PC properly, I understand?),

Mostly it's because it doesn't make any sense. NPCs can't read the PC's mind. As such, the PC's motives will always be a mystery. Defining those motives thus provides no C&C benefit at all.

I'm not sure that I really understand your point here; there's a difference between someone's past being important to them vs being important to other people. I never got a feeling that the PC in KotR2 was straight-jacketed by the past ("you are always fundamentally you, even if you don't remember what you've done"), only that the past was always there and those people who knew the past would react to that, rather than who you are. Or am I missing your point?

In KotOR2, there was no reason why the Exile wouldn't have known about his past actions. The player didn't, so the player couldn't ever correctly adopt his character's perspective. There's a pivotal scene with Atris that made no sense because the player had no idea what she was talking about, but she was talking to the Exile like he knew what was going on (and he should have, given what it was). But because the player was kept entirely out of the loop, the game just fell apart.

[Merin]

In KotOR2, there was no reason why the Exile wouldn't have known about his past actions. The player didn't, so the player couldn't ever correctly adopt his character's perspective. There's a pivotal scene with Atris that made no sense because the player had no idea what she was talking about, but she was talking to the Exile like he knew what was going on (and he should have, given what it was). But because the player was kept entirely out of the loop, the game just fell apart.

 

That kind of thing in KotOR 2 was excessively heavy-handed and awkward. It did pull me out of the game with more than a little frustration at times. However, as has been pointed out before on many occasions, I tend to give games more leeway than you do in this area.

[Merin]

Motivation has no external force. It can't affect the world to cause a reaction. If I save the baby from the fire because I love babies or if I save the baby because I hate the smell of burnt baby, the world will react to it the same way. With one baby that isn't burned.

 

If someone asks why I saved the baby, what I tell them isn't my motivation either. It's what I want them to believe.

 

Do you think the game (game writers) should force motivation onto the PC in a cRPG where the player gets to make his or her own character?

[Sylvius the Mad]

-I want LaRPing-

Ok, you two really need to learn the difference between a cRPG story with a set narrative and LaRP.

1. LARPing requires other players. That defeats the entire purpose of playing CRPGs. I see the job of a CRPG as to reproduce a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other players. Anything that detracts from this is a negative feature.

2.. I flatly deny that any game with a set narrative is an RPG.

 

CRPGs have two narratives. There's the authored narrative, created by the writers, and the emergent narrative, created by the player's gameplay choices. Only by combining those two things do we have anything that could be broadly described as the game's story.

Writers are not there for you to fantasize the story and your character's motivations in your head. If the writer leaves the protagonist's feelings and motivations to the player's imagination, they have failed at making a believable character and rationalize their choices.

Your argument is circular. You've presupposed a definition that precludes roleplaying, and then are using that to argue that roleplaying is impossible.

I'm completely serious and I mean no offence, but you need to play ME1-3, Skyrim, Oblivion, DA2; they are perfect for the both of you. The characters are devoid of motivations, so you can roleplay as you like. The story has no major reaction, if any at all, to player choicem it's linear and overall they are perfect for what you describe.

The ME games and DA2 are exactly where BioWare went wrong on this. It is there where they started to define the PC's motivations and deny the player control over them.

 

DAO didn't do that. KotOR didn't do that. NWN didn't. BG didn't. Fallout didn't. IWD didn't. Torment didn't. NWN2 didn't. ToEE didn't. Where do you see games that do define the PC's (or PCs') motivations?

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys.

Some people do care about the whys.

 

Those people are crazy, because the whys aren't ever knowable.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Sylvius the Mad

[Lurky]

The game can react to them if you input them, via dialogue. Restrictive, but it can be done. That way, if you input these whys, the game and the people of the world can react to them. And this is like in real life too. It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys. And if these people care about the whys, then giving you the option to input them in the game adds to the C&C and reactivity of the world. For the people who like reactive worlds, this is a good thing.

 

Did I make myself clear?

How?

 

Motivation has no external force. It can't affect the world to cause a reaction. If I save the baby from the fire because I love babies or if I save the baby because I hate the smell of burnt baby, the world will react to it the same way. With one baby that isn't burned.

 

If someone asks why I saved the baby, what I tell them isn't my motivation either. It's what I want them to believe.

 

Motivation can't affect the world, but it can affect how the NPCs see you. They are part of the world too.

 

Maybe it's not your real motivation. Maybe you lied, and your reasons for lying can be very variable. It's your choice if you want to lie or not; the point is, stating your motivations can make people react to you. If people want reactive NPCs, giving you the option to state the why adds to this reactivity.

 

Hell, in the case of PE, even lying could cause a reaction too. We have psionics. Maybe they can tell if you're lying.

 

Now, you can enter the debate of whether this can be done well or not, but that's a debate of implementation. I agree that it's usually not done very well, and you can only state your motivation with complete freedom in PnP roleplaying to a real GM. But that's why cRPGs are simulations. If the simulation can be good enough, it can add a lot to the game, I think.

 

It's deontology versus consequentialism: some people care about the whys.

Some people do care about the whys.

 

Those people are crazy, because the whys aren't ever knowable.

 

Wow, you just trashed an entire school of ethics in a single sentence. Way to go.

 

No, caring about that is not crazy. We're clearly not going to agree on this, so let's just drop the topic.

[Grimlorn]

I guess I was wrong - the BSN was already here.

haha keep in mind you're a regular poster on BSN and so are most of the people clamoring for romance. Yet the people who argue against you don't post on the BSN forums.

 

Someone quote this so Merin sees it.