Putting Words in <CHARNAME>'s Mouth, right or wrong? Options

[Rabain]

What do people think of modders putting words in <charname>'s mouth?

For example, a modder wants you to do X so Y can happen, its part of his mod quest. However the player might not want to do X but the modder has designed his quest so that X has to happen so that shiny NPC can get uber item Z.

In order to facilitate this, modder puts words in <charname>'s mouth in order to make the player choose the right option eg:

Chain
NPC: I think we should go to castle X.
PC: I agree, let's go.
NPC: You will so not regret this <charname>!
Do LeaveAreaLua:(Everyone).

What do people think of this type of action? I understand that the norm is to give the player a choice, afterall it is the player who is roleplaying <charname> and should be able to choose rather than be dragged down a certain quest path.

Do you think this type of action should be avoided at all costs and the player should always have a choice even if it is to say "Ask me again later"?

I am not for or against this myself, depending on the way it has been integrated into the game. Though I would be wary of being dragged hither and yon by everyone whom I choose to join my party.

[jastey]

wrong.

I want to have a choice of what my PC replies. If it is essential for the plot that she goes somewhere /does something it has to be implemented differently.

There are situations in BGII (although I don't recall an example) where the PC has a choice of the same reply put in different words, though (friendly, unfriendly etc.). I am slightly annoyed when I notice this.

[igi]

Such situations should be avoided.
If a quest *requires* a certain action from the player, the quest designer has to live with the fact that the quest may never trigger, as the player may never od this action. Forcing them to do it really, really sucks.

[kulyok]

I agree with igi and Jastey in the essence. To be able to choose is essential in any roleplaying game.

In your situation, however, there is a compromise:

NPC: I think we should go to castle X.

PC1: I agree, let's go.
OR
PC2: Well, if you insist...
NPC1: You will so not regret this, <charname>!
(If you don't place a comma before addressing CHARNAME, I will not download your mod.)

PC3: We have other concerns. It will have to wait.
OR
PC4: No, no, it is too dangerous!
NPC2: I am sorry, <CHARNAME>. Too late...
(Party teleports)


This is an acceptable solution to me.

This post has been edited by kulyok: Jan 24 2006, 07:17 PM

[Baronius]

I absolutely agree with kulyok.

[Domi]

The original game forces PC hand often enough... anyone but I ever tried to tell Bayle that he does not want to go to Spellhold?

Myself, I am not sure that I want the NPC to over-write the PC's descisions with the "Too late!" because it would make e feel that my descisions had no impact and thus was a ornamental "one reply" option. I'd rather the modder was "honest" and told me straight out that I am not getting out of it.

But, ideally, I think that every quest needs to be easily abandoned, especially, if they are NPC quests. <insert a speech on how annoying the obligatory NPC quests are>

[Rabain]

I am a firm believer in providing options to get out of any dialog without actioning or most of the time even answering questions. Dialog often triggers at inappropriate times even if there isn't a battle going on and if I have played several times and know all the options I want an out as soon as possible which is why I tend to put that option into each block I create.

(If you don't place a comma before addressing CHARNAME, I will not download your mod.)

I take it that was just a comment on grammar in general considering it was only an example. Regardless you are not going to know about the positioning of commas until after you have downloaded the mod.

It's another thing that can be annoying I suppose. Inappropriate use of ! for example which I find I am guilty of when I read back over dialog and use of CAPITAL letters or looping dialogs etc

In your situation, however, there is a compromise

The problem is that while you or I might use this compromise as our standard, others aren't even using it as a compromise and are happy to railroad <charname> down a certain path if it means the player will see all the hard work that went into their quest the first time they play the mod.

But, ideally, I think that every quest needs to be easily abandoned, especially, if they are NPC quests.

Agreed, it makes things more enjoyable if I can do a quest when I choose or not at all if I'm not in the mood for it.

[Sorrow]

PC3: We have other concerns. It will have to wait.
OR
PC4: No, no, it is too dangerous!
NPC2: I am sorry, <CHARNAME>. Too late...
(Party teleports)


This is an acceptable solution to me.

Any NPC that tries to override my PC's decision would be gutted for his/her insolence.

[kulyok]

I take it that was just a comment on grammar in general considering it was only an example. Regardless you are not going to know about the positioning of commas until after you have downloaded the mod.

It's another thing that can be annoying I suppose. Inappropriate use of ! for example which I find I am guilty of when I read back over dialog and use of CAPITAL letters or looping dialogs etc

It was a joke, actually: despite my bad English, punctuation is my pet peeve(should I write it in capitals? ), and I thought it was sort of known. Sorry.

But yeah, it is annoying.

As for knowing about grammar after downloading - I don't know. I've just read the dialogues for Shar-Teel over at NEJ, and - and I will not download the mod. This preview was more than enough. The same goes for Quitch's Imoen Relationship - I might download it out of curiosity when it is done, because it seems to have so many fans, but I am already prepared to be disappointed. On the other hand, I have seen the previews, and I'll still grab Nalia Romance with both hands.


The way I see it, you have three paths:

- make this quest non-obligatory, i.e. <CHARNAME> says "no" and NPC says: "Okay, later". Everyone is satisfied, but it means some extra work for you.

- let it remain obligatory, but have several responses. This way, <CHARNAME> will be annoyed with NPC for forcing <CHARNAME> to do this - not with linear, non-interactive writing. In other words, the player will feel resentment towards your NPC(which is good, if you are planning to make it a character trait), not towards you.

- leave only one reply. I do not think that this solution is the best, because it will be your design decision, not a trait of your NPC's character. This difference is important - to me, at least.



(Since I am in love with PS:T all over again, I guess I'll insert a reference here). Planescape:Torment rocks. And then some. But in every single quest, it is railroading and railroading. It becomes annoying after a while, even to a dedicated fan such as myself. Small, optional things, or quests where you can have several paths are a breath of fresh air.

[Thauron]

Chain
NPC: I think we should go to castle X.
PC: I agree, let's go.
NPC: You will so not regret this <charname>!
Do LeaveAreaLua:(Everyone).

What do people think of this type of action?

I think as a general rule, one should try to avoid putting words in Charname's mouth. Sometimes, you can do it, but not as in your example. This might be extremely annoying. When there is a question, there should always be the possibility to say yes or no. Adding something like 'oops, too late' is possibly even more frustrating. (What if a NPC in the company just died, and his/her stuff is still dropped on the ground f.e.? Bye, bye, equipment?)

If it's important for the NPC, he can keep bugging the PC about it (and eventually leave if the answer stays no) - like f.e. Jaheira and Khalid in BG1 (going to Nashkel).

I think it is acceptable when, as a modder you can't think of a good reason why the PC should have more than one possibility, but you want to interrupt an otherwise endless monologue or CHAIN. I have done it one single time when the PC is asked to recount something he just witnessed (and not wanting to tell what has happened would be rather absurd, since this dialogue only triggers when the PC has followed the good path all along (the decision has already been made, so to speak) + there will be an opportunity to say 'bugger off' to the character a bit later anyway.) I think Bioware uses this sort of forced dialogue in several occasions too.

@ Sorrow: I like it when a NPC forces a decision on you (but not like the above given example) - it makes them feel more real or alive. I makes no sense f.e. that Ajantis, Keldorn or Jaheira (you know the types) would ask for the PCs approval before doing something which they consider to be the only possible (right/good) action. But I guess you don't like to play with these softhearted good-obsessed characters anyway .

This post has been edited by Thauron: Jan 25 2006, 03:40 PM

[Domi]

I would say that it is not the prerrogative of the "good" characters to override PC's descisions. One of my favorite things about Montaron in BG1NPC - and the reason I never use him - is that he just goes off and kills Ender Sai and PC can make fuss about it later. And Xzar just goes off, and releases the green slimes... Both perfectly in character, rare events that spice up the role play.

So, the evil characters can do their own thing. One of the things I don't like about ToB version of Sarevok is his obedience training. I always thought that he was highly individualistic and always had his opinion. His life story emphasizes that. Yes, perhaps for a short little while he would be just happy to be back from the dead, but in a few hours he should try to control PC. There is just no other way. His joining dialogue is great (How can I trust you? -You cannot.) but then it's just silly (or maybe just does not show up). I am about to play through the game with him this time, so if there is any content there, I will see it.

This post has been edited by Domi: Jan 25 2006, 03:43 PM

[Thauron]

I would say that it is not the prerrogative of the "good" characters to override PC's descisions. One of my favorite things about Montaron in BG1NPC - and the reason I never use him - is that he just goes off and kills Ender Sai and PC can make fuss about it later. And Xzar just goes off, and releases the green slimes... Both perfectly in character, rare events that spice up the role play.

Hey, I never did noticed that - probably because I never play Xzar and Montaron either - but of course you're right, evil characters should do that too, if it fits their character. My bad.

[Domi]

well, I think one has to play a real evil party to accomodate them. My evil-neutral Shar, Xan, Tiax, Faldorn and Garrick would not fit them in. If I ever decide to wildely and cruelly burn, rape and pillage the Coast, I would probably go with Shar, Xzar, Montaron, Eldoth and Viconia. It should be... interesting. I will have to kill Skie, obviously, but the perfect party requires sacrifices.

This post has been edited by Domi: Jan 25 2006, 08:35 PM

[Sorrow]

@ Sorrow: I like it when a NPC forces a decision on you (but not like the above given example) - it makes them feel more real or alive. I makes no sense f.e. that Ajantis, Keldorn or Jaheira (you know the types) would ask for the PCs approval before doing something which they consider to be the only possible (right/good) action. But I guess you don't like to play with these softhearted good-obsessed characters anyway .

They can do what they Will as long as it doesn't affect my plans.
If they try to force me to do something, (by teleporting me and my party without my consent for example), they need to be gutted.
If they put me in an ankward situation just like Nalia did by not telling me that her castle is infested by trolls, they need to be punished.
I think that Nalia needs a good spanking .