As a cRPG this game often makes it difficult to actually do RP

[Randolph Carter]

So first of all, I have to say that Owlcat has probably made one of the best cRPGs I've ever played.

However, the game makes RP really hard sometimes. I've accumulated over 350h so far and haven't gotten past Act 3. This is partly because I have restartitis and want to try new builds and classes, but partly because the game often makes it really hard to RP properly with your PC. Then I get frustrated and try another RP approach.

I generally find that there are far too few dialogue options and story paths within quests or events to play a wider range of characters (RP wise).

In dialogues you often only have a choice between "I don't like you, die!", "Atone for your crimes!" (and die afterwards), "You poor thing, you have my utmost sympathy!", "Haha, [insert witty phrase]!" and "I don't care." - at least it feels like that. I would really like to see more nuanced options. These can also lead to the same result in the end, as long as you can choose options that fit your PC.

Also, sometimes happenings in events or quests are forced down your throat. In additon these are sometimes inconsistent in itself, too. This forces you to constantly do head-canon to somehow explain the events or justify the PCs actions in a RP context.

A quick example:

I play a Neutral/Chaotic Evil PC. Thinks only of himself, actually detests everyone, loves violence and is a bit sick in the head. (a bit like cross between Wenduag and Camellia) Ok, so far so good. My PC comes across Ember in Act 1 and wants the Crusaders to kill her because as I mentioned hes a lil sick & twisted. But since Seelah is in the party she intervenes and nothing can be done about it. The following dialogue options with the crusaders are then like if the PC himself had stood up for Ember. These option don't fit the PC at all and even with head-canon its hard to explain them. So I have to remove Seelah from the party beforehand or exclude the event completely from a RP context. Neither option is really great and this completely destroys my immersion.

Why can't you tell Seelah not to interfere? And if she doesn't take my PCs crap let her turn against him or leave the party, thats fine, too. Or at least let the PC reprimand her after the event or something. Let me intervene as a player and give me the opportunity to play my PC properly.

A few extra dialogue options and switching Seelah to "hostile" because she can't let the PC kill helpless Ember isn't super much effort, I'd argue.

But the most stupid thing is that you may kill Ember in the following conversation (when the crusaders are dead or gone) without Seelah saying a word. I even let her do the killing blow - no comment. This just completely dumb and is again immersion breaking :/

Would this be a single case, it wouldn't be so tragic, but these kind of things happen all the time.

Another example is Forn (the guy that hunts Kylessa or how shes called) - you can only get the quest for him if your PC is nice, polite, kind and basically imposes help on him. Why not implement a way for evil characters to get the quest from him? I want to play your content Owlcat, but oftetimes I can't because there is no reasoning or possibility for my PCs to do it RP wise. More nuanced options are the key here, too. I would even be satisfied if Forn would reject the PC and you would not get the quest from him either if you choose an evil option. At least then it would be coherent in an RP context and I wouldn't have to ignore him completely.

So again, I know I'm repeating myself: I would really like to see more nuanced ways and options for events or dialogues to unfold.

I think Pillars of Eternity did a much better job of that, for example. The aligment system, which is based on personality traits like aggressive, benevolent, clever, cruel, honest and many more, offered inherently more options and there was always a nuanced choice that I was happy with and that fit my character in a way. Much less head-canon involved, too. Also the mentioned traits are not as arbitrary and more narrowly defined than terms like "Lawful" or "Good".

Well, I think I'm done. Rant over, thanks for coming to my TED talk

[Resting Witch Face]

Having read your post, you come across as a reasonable, balanced individual whose points are valid and I totally get where you are coming from. I too would like to see some of the things you mention but I also understand that to give us that feeling of complete role-playing would be one hell of an achievement for a crpg, one I'm not sure is even possible just yet from a financial point of view unless a huge games company was prepared to take a big risk and make an artistic triumph of a game, limited to crpg sales.

A long time ago, I wrote for a fairly famous book series that was...let's say D&D lite - a choose your own adventure type of thing. I hated that you were always the "hero" and wanted to open it up to multiple alignments in how you played. Now I could do this and in fact started doing so - it genuinely began like the best book in the series but I basically maxed out my time and book length, a quarter of the way into the story as there were just so many branching paths to take care of. I ultimately went for a less diverse approach that still produced a shorter experience and it was not a success.

I think any crpg faces the same challenge. Let's face it WOTR is huge yet still could have more choices. Now if you halved the length and doubled the dialogue choices would people be happier? Probably not. I'd wager they planned out the games length on one alignment/mythic path play through e.g Angel then took it from there, varying the choices and paths as much as they could within a development time frame to make the best game possible and still come in on time and budget. To be fair, they did a hell of a job and I personally feel this is the greatest crpg to date.

Looking at your examples, I largely agree in what you are saying but I would ask myself...why am I hanging about with Seelah in the first place? In reality, I'd probably punt her asap as I would have no time for a do-gooder constantly in my company in the first place. As to Forn, well...again in reality, being a bit of a git generally means people will not ask for favours the same way they would if you were some concerned, approachable person. That's just a fact of life. So yes, he probably would just ignore you.

In fact that's what makes being even somewhat evil in crpg's hard and why so many games struggle to flesh out the evil side. If you're acting a selfish git and pissing everyone off, you'll get asked for help less and people will want less to do with you...generally.
A bigger problem for me in my head space was what if I didn't want to be the Knight Commander? Cause a few of my characters would be like...no way. Again, I had to try to justify that in my head as I can appreciate how difficult it would be to make a game if I simply wanted to do none of the plot whatsoever. I have to give Owlcat a break here as they have to enforce some plot elements to get the story moving. My only alternative would be something like a pure sandbox like Skyrim which doesn't do it for me so I have to appreciate the limitations in a game that is far more enjoyable to me.

I couldn't get into Pillars for some unknown reason nor DOS:2. I'm not sure exactly why but I've found WOTR far more enjoyable than either even with its flaws. That's sacrilege to some but it's my opinion based on being a gamer that recalls loading the 6 discs of Baldur's Gate into his PC.

To kinda backup what I said earlier though, I enjoyed Tyranny and it allows you to be all sorts of shades of grey in dialogue responses and outcomes. It's what 20 hrs max though? All those choices severely cut down on game length and again, I think Owlcat have got the balance right or at least the best so far.

I actually continue to find the sheer breadth of the story-line variety as I change characters, astonishing to be honest.

[steventirey]

Originally posted by Maxwell Demon:

Having read your post, you come across as a reasonable, balanced individual whose points are valid and I totally get where you are coming from.

Yeah... this isn't weird at all. I suppose it is also a coincidence both you and Randolph have also played using the name Prince Charming. Making a profile private doesn't prevent others from seeing the other names you have used.

[Resting Witch Face]

Lol. My profile isn't private. Never has been. I did use that name once for about a day.
Are you saying we are the same person and I've posted something that took me half an hour to write to myself for no reason?
Seriously man, there ain't conspiracies everywhere.

[steventirey]

Originally posted by Maxwell Demon:

Lol. My profile isn't private. Never has been. I did use that name once for about a day.
Are you saying we are the same person and I've posted something that took me half an hour to write to myself for no reason?
Seriously man, there ain't conspiracies everywhere.

Your profile is private. And while I may be wrong, someone starting a post with random compliments is suspicious.

[lemurs2]

DnD split back in 3.5.
The munchkins went to Pathfinder and the role players to 5e.

[Resting Witch Face]

My profile is fully visible and every alias I've ever used is not hidden either...I could have but I didn't. Seriously mate, have a read of his post then mine. We actually have opposite views but I appreciate he went about explaining them respectfully. I know it's strange but I speak to all people like that.
Seriously...read them both...think about what the hell either of us would gain and maybe just say sorry dude, kinda got that one wrong there. Not expecting it but it might give me more faith in humanity.

[Resting Witch Face]

Seems it was set set to Private, no idea why. Thanks for pointing that out...changed. Still not the other guy though lol.
Honestly, some people can just be nice to one another. I think you probably know now you were wrong in the assumption.
No offence taken.

[mk11]

Taking the Ember example.

Why at that time are you the leader of the party? Just imagine that the conversation attributed to your character is actually being said by Seelah.

All these sort of CRPG seem to have problem with Chaotic or Lawful characters. Chaotic characters just don't have any reason to act as Knight Commander. Lawful characters miss out on so much loot from not acting as robbers. So you need to pick a type of character that can fit within the limitations.

The only one that seems to fit is someone border line insane from the PTSD of constant fighting and slaughter.

[Koveras]

There is a limit to how many options and reactive a video game can be.

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by Koveras:

There is a limit to how many options and reactive a video game can be.

It also depends on the focus of the game - this is a long linear combat-focused game.

Something like Planescape: Torment or Disco Elysium can have WAY more conversation options by its nature. And for reactivity, also stuff like Tyranny, New Vegas or Alpha Protocol. Or other stuff I'm forgetting.

Because that's where they spent the time (in the case of Alpha Protocol, maybe too much of the time lol).

[The Living Darkness]

Ill admit I did not read the whole post, but I did read all the way through to the Ember example. Pathfinder Kingmaker did a better job with RP dialogue. I dont think anyone will claim otherwise, Wrath simplified things by essentially removing alignment specific choices and making good/evil, lawful/chaotic as the only choices. However, I also feel if you want to RP a character with Chaotic Evil behavior and care enough to create character motivations I have to ask....... why the heck is Seelah traveling with your party..... dont use her.

A good example from Kingmaker is Tristian and Jaethal or Regongar and Octavia. If you are playing an evil character there will come times when you will clash with a character above. If you are good you will clash with a character above. These characters have clear behavior patterns and using one that conflicts with your behavior invites problems. Neutral paths can bridge the gap, but basically good or evil will wind up with dead companions one way or another.

In Wrath if you are evil, Seelah will cause problems. She has a moral code..... although she really is a bad example of lawful good. Use companions that are closer to you in alignment, one step away for example. Typically speaking they will not block your actions. At the end of the day you can literally tell Seelah to pack up her bags and go home. I personally dont tell companions I dont use to leave my camp, but you can tell companions to leave and never come back.

Anyhow, it may help to you to RP by doing that. Mercenaries are of course another option..... I prefer the companion banter so its not one im likely to do, but it will make all decisions your own, they will never stop you or interject.

[Resting Witch Face]

Originally posted by Quillithe:

Originally posted by Koveras:

this is a long linear combat-focused game.

That might describe Diablo or Titan Quest. Don't make it out to be a hack n' slash.

I's say WOTR is anything but linear within the genre. That's why it has the most replayability of any crpg.

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by Maxwell Demon:

That might describe Diablo or Titan Quest. Don't make it out to be a hack n' slash.

I's say WOTR is anything but linear within the genre. That's why it has the most replayability of any crpg.

It's not the worst for linearity by any means, but it's much longer and more linear than the other games I listed (which are pretty far on the extremes). And it's certainly more combat focused than them!

None of this is meant as a criticism, it's just the nature of the game. There's a substantial amount of path reactivity but it's not quite as full non-linear as some games.

[Stink Bug]

Originally posted by Koveras:

There is a limit to how many options and reactive a video game can be.

While this is true, Owlcat’s previous game Kingmaker did a much better job of offering a range of roleplaying styles, which IMO had a lot to do with the aligned choices being dual-axis: it forced them to make a bigger variety just to cover the alignments.

[Azure-Ghost]

Originally posted by Stink Bug:

Originally posted by Koveras:

There is a limit to how many options and reactive a video game can be.

While this is true, Owlcat’s previous game Kingmaker did a much better job of offering a range of roleplaying styles, which IMO had a lot to do with the aligned choices being dual-axis: it forced them to make a bigger variety just to cover the alignments.

while i haven't played through WotR even a single time yet (though restarted with different characters a few times) it already seems to branch out far more than Kingmaker did due to the Mythic paths. So once you reach the Paths terrain they don't only have to flag for alignment choices but have a full set of alignment choice reactions for each path leading to overall more branches which on top of that often lead to bigger changes than they did in Kingmaker.

This overall discussion reminds me of another one i read on the discord of a small indie team who were making a visual novel. The team had only 1 writer (and i think it were 2-4 people for programming/visuals) and some players who saw her online started arguing why the game progressed so slowly at which the writer explained how many signs and sentences were hidden just in a small section of the game.
They had the choice to either use autocomplete sentences which are way easier and faster to use but more blunt (i.e. sentences that where the same all the time and just changed a few words depending on flags like person X,Y or Z died,lived,was harmed ect. or they did it the way they did it (and most fans seemed to appreciate) and write a totally new sentence for every possible outcome to that point which hit the tone way better than some auto fill in.