The Disposition Quibble Thread

[RedSocialKnight]

Any game that tries to systematize personality is going to be simplistic and reductive to some extent, so it's inevitable that players will sometimes take issue with how actions are categorized by the game. There was a guy a few days ago complaining because "Clever" means "shallow and sarcastic" in the game rather than "smart".

 

But even though I'm not surprised, I'm still annoyed to run into the same thing myself.

 

Here's my first real beef: I've planned to make my Cipher's primary trait "Rational" with sidelines in "Diplomatic" and "Honest" -- he's supposed to be a clear-sighted, plain-spoken guy who cuts through the bull**** and finds a solution that makes sense.

 

Well, here I am in The Salty Mast, and the "Rational" dialogue option is to say that I'll help the madam, but only for cash. Apparently it's rational means to be greedy all of a sudden. Why? I have no need of the money, but I could certainly use a friendly connection with knowledge of Defiance Bay's underworld. 

 

Why am I in an Ayn Rand universe where small-minded selfishness is the path of reason?

[Longknife]

[Cruel] So why don't you go jump off a cliff if it bothers you so much?

[FalloutBoy]

[Rational] Attack the OP.

[Ink Blot]

Even though I know it has some kind of accumulated effect in the game, I don't worry about the tag associated with a response. I just choose the one that I feel is closest to what my character would actually say/do and roll with that.

[anameforobsidian]

Any descriptive system is eventually going to have cracks as the overall description doesn't match the vagueries of conversation.  I still like the disposition system.

[kat7ra]

Turn off the visual that shows what dialogue option is what.

It helps.

[RedSocialKnight]

And now:

 

"[Rational]: Maybe the gods took offense at your overindulgence."

 

What?

[Rosveen]

And now:

 

"[Rational]: Maybe the gods took offense at your overindulgence."

 

What?

Well, why not? It's a possible reason. Maybe. I'm not sure if they personally intervene in what life you're reborn into.

 

I turned off dialogue tips, so I don't have this problem.

[mazeltov]

Gotta be on the same cosmic wavelength as the devs, maaaaan. 

[RedSocialKnight]

And soon...

 

"[Rational]: Just follow orders, Pallegina."

 

Don't think for yourself or anything, because that wouldn't be rational.

[kat7ra]

Well rational could be "whatever is best for you in the current situation"

While thinking for yourself would often be passionate I'm guessing.

Just a thought about what the devs could have meant.

 

As long as it's not the modern type dialogue where you get to see a "synopsis" of the dialogue which turns out to be something COMPLETELY different then what you actually wanted to say, (ME, DA, etc.) I won't have much problems with this myself. It kinda comes down to what you yourself feel is passionate/rational/cruel etc, and that is VERY hard to get 100 % perfect for 100 % of the people all the time.

[trashmyego]

I also think these descriptors involve consideration of the NPC you're talking to. So it might be more along the lines of what is 'Rational' in their eyes, so you in turn receive that Reputation. And this is probably also meant to be a little conflicting at times, with the basis of the system centered around NPC's having different considerations of what it means to have each reputation. 

 

Turning off the visual tags helps immersion in any case. 

[Iguana-on-a-stick]

Yeah, turning off the tags really helps.

 

What I do find weird, though, is that my character now has a reputation for honesty -and- deceptiveness. 2 points in each. Now, on the one hand this is a fair reflection of his choices, sometimes he's honest, sometimes not. But it's really weird that some NPCs go "well, you have a reputation for honesty" and others go "well, you're deceptive" in reaction to this.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense for points in diametrically opposed traits to cancel eachother out? I.e. my character should have no reputation for either honesty or dishonesty because he can be either or both?

[Luckmann]

Turn off the visual that shows what dialogue option is what.

It helps.

I really want to do this, because I can feel how the options are affecting how I play, but I JUST DON'T DARE TO. Because:

1. It is SO often issues like the ones mentioned in the thread show up, where a choice you're making sounds nothing like what you'd consider, for example, rational. There's so many Cruel options that are more Aggressive than Cruel, and at other times when you really want to twist the knife ("Hey, you deserve your fate because of what you did.") is suddenly rational. It's like they got stuck in the good option/bad option and evil option/nice option dichotomy, despite the system giving them the perfect chance to get away from it.

    

2. Without the indicators, I have no idea what tone some things are. There have been several times I've seen options that I would not consider aggressive, but which have the Aggressive disposition. You can't read the intonations and meanings of many dialogue options. Like I said in another thread, something as simple as "You better give the macguffin to me" are two completely different options based on whether it has the Aggressive or the Benevolent disposition.

This is also where I voice my disappointment in that Bleak Walkers became Blackguards after all, despite their initial descriptions suggesting the contrary. They should've been Favoured: Aggressive/Rational and Opposed: Diplomatic/Passionate. Their current setup could've worked, if not for the fact that the various Dispositions are either very tied to good vs. evil or so loosly defined that they seemingly make no sense a lot of the time.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Luckmann

[vattghern]

[stoic] I don't care.

[Sleazebag]

[stoic 4] By the gods, you're that weird quiet guy aren't you? Here, have all my wares for free. Now get out of here, you're creeping out the rest of the customers!

[kat7ra]

 

Turn off the visual that shows what dialogue option is what.

It helps.

I really want to do this, because I can feel how the options are affecting how I play, but I JUST DON'T DARE TO. Because:

1. It is SO often issues like the ones mentioned in the thread show up, where a choice you're making sounds nothing like what you'd consider, for example, rational. There's so many Cruel options that are more Aggressive than Cruel, and at other times when you really want to twist the knife ("Hey, you deserve your fate because of what you did.") is suddenly rational. It's like they got stuck in the good option/bad option and evil option/nice option dichotomy, despite the system giving them the perfect chance to get away from it.

    

2. Without the indicators, I have no idea what tone some things are. There have been several times I've seen options that I would not consider aggressive, but which have the Aggressive disposition. You can't read the intonations and meanings of many dialogue options. Like I said in another thread, something as simple as "You better give the macguffin to me" are two completely different options based on whether it has the Aggressive or the Benevolent disposition.

This is also where I voice my disappointment in that Bleak Walkers became Blackguards after all, despite their initial descriptions suggesting the contrary. They should've been Favoured: Aggressive/Rational and Opposed: Diplomatic/Passionate. Their current setup could've worked, if not for the fact that the various Dispositions are either very tied to good vs. evil or so loosly defined that they seemingly make no sense a lot of the time.

 

I get you man, I really do. For me though, the heavy influence seeing the options would have on me outweigh not taking the "right* choice all the time.

 

Thrashmyego said something that might make sense though. as it's maybe not what YOU consider rational, but what THEY consider rational. Some people might see a compassionate act as rational, while someone else might see it as passionate, heck if we go Kotor2 some might see it as cruel

 

So maybe we're min/maxing where we shouldn't, you can do your best to get a reputation you want, but sometimes an act you do will be misjudged by other people, and that's part of roleplaying.

[Ashtonc4]

Even though I know it has some kind of accumulated effect in the game, I don't worry about the tag associated with a response. I just choose the one that I feel is closest to what my character would actually say/do and roll with that.

That works unless your a paladin or priest

[sparklecat]

I don't find that having the tags on results in me taking choices I wouldn't otherwise; if I feel some given response doesn't fit as well as another, even if it's not my preferred disposition, well, there'll be plenty more opportunities that do fit better later on down the line.