Commentary

[SimDing0]

So far as the "if you want to roleplay, just don't pick the options" argument goes, I think you have to take a step back and look at this.

 

A certain degree of imagination is always going to be required to play a game such as this--we have to infer to an extent characters' traits and motivations where they aren't explicitly spelled out. However, if "roleplaying" is to be designating the personalities of the NPCs we encounter as well as our party, then we're well on the way to uninstalling BG2 and making up the entire game in our heads. Roleplaying in BG2 is very much about developing a character through a world which has been established for you--and that means that it should not be up to the player to decide whether they can successfully get a romantic encounter or not.

 

If your vision of a certain character is that they are without restriction, then obviously that's fine, but I don't find "just don't pick the option" a compelling argument, because if the possibility is there, then for right or for wrong, you have written the NPC in that way.

[berelinde]

@ Immortality: Aw, shucks! And I'm not discouraged! The discussion has given me the opportunity to think about the reasons why I made the decisions I did, and that's never bad.

 

Nor do I think modders shouldn't listen to feedback. I rely on it a lot while writing, actually. I do, however prefer that folks read the material under consideration before weighing in on it.

 

Shortly after the first Gavin beta was released, I ran a poll about whether or not Gavin should be corruptible by an evil PC. This poll was the result of a suggestion made by a player that it might be unfair to restrict Gavin's affection to good PCs. But I couldn't see him living in a relationship where he and his love interest had such vastly different values. One of them had to change, either Gavin be corruptible or the player be redeemable. In the end, after reading a lot of very convincing posts and PMs, I decided that his faith was too strong for him to be corrupted, but he might assist a *voluntary* redemption of the PC. With the understanding that she could say "no, do not try to change me," because the player runs the show, and it's the player that gets to decide how his or her character will act.

 

My issue was this particular discussion is that the statements might have been suggestions, but they were presented as directives. Now that that issue has been clarified, my response is "Thank you for registering your opinion, but I think I'll be leaving the encounters as-is."

[Western Paladin]

Immortality makes some fine points.

 

If your vision of a certain character is that they are without restriction, then obviously that's fine, but I don't find "just don't pick the option" a compelling argument, because if the possibility is there, then for right or for wrong, you have written the NPC in that way.

 

 

Fair enough, Sim. But I feel (and never having written an RE encounter, I may be wrong - stay tuned, though) that there's a line between building a world and nannying your players, or making them jump through hoops while playing a game ostensibly for fun.

 

I might not even have thought of that in the context of this discussion if the notion of effectively "punishing" people who build PCs with low mental stats hadn't come up.

 

EDIT: I have a master's degree. I am pretty sure I know what an analogy is.

[berelinde]

Good point, Sim, but there's a difference between a party-joinable NPC and a chance encounter. For the former, yes, it needs more development. For the latter, though, maybe not quite as much. For a full-blown relationship, I'm sure that Aimi, being a decent person, if rather submissive and superficial, would prefer somebody who was human, wasn't evil and who had a decent strength score. But for a fling, her standards don't have to be that high. Nor would Aimi last two seconds as a party-joinable NPC.

 

For the encounters I wrote, the length and involvement depth of the encounters already did influence the alignment/reputation/stat/race criteria. For short, superficial encounters like Aimi, Talak, and of course Mira, who works in retail and can carry on with anybody, I didn't see the need to hobble them with a laundry list of restrictiosn. I had considered making Ada available only to the tall races. Honestly, I don't remember what I decided, which means I need to rethink the issue. If I said OK to halflings, gnomes, and dwarves, I'll change that, I think. Laran's got racial restrictions in the sense that he prefers the "pretty races," i.e. humans, half-elves, elves, halflings, and he's got an alignment restriction later on, at the end of the second encounter (it makes sense if you play the mod.)

 

@Kulyok: would you mind checking Ada's initial EXTEND_BOTTOM, and adding the check for ~OR(4) Race(Player1,HUMAN) Race(Player1,HALF_ELF) Race(Player1,ELF) Race(Player1,HALFORC)~ if it isn't there already?

[Kulyok]

If your vision of a certain character is that they are without restriction, then obviously that's fine, but I don't find "just don't pick the option" a compelling argument, because if the possibility is there, then for right or for wrong, you have written the NPC in that way.

 

Quite. It applies to all encounters of mine - and to the way I play every single encounter in the mod, I would think.

 

 

As far as stat-restrictions go, I would have definitely introduced them in a mod for PS:T, but BG2, for better or for worse, lacks stat-related checks - and being able to say what illithids are/to ask the Spectator about the chest does not influence the game an awful lot. Race and gender restrictions, however, are consistent within the original game.

 

 

It would have made sense, if every character was able to make a pass at every RE character and was able to get a definite answer, like Ajnos mentioned. I agree. But... if a male half-orc was able to make a pass at Kelsey, would it really add to the story? I am not sure.

 

 

 

@Kulyok: would you mind checking Ada's initial EXTEND_BOTTOM, and adding the check for ~OR(4) Race(Player1,HUMAN) Race(Player1,HALF_ELF) Race(Player1,ELF) Race(Player1,HALFORC)~ if it isn't there already?

 

Of course; I will add them later today, when I am home.

[cmorgan]

Interesting stuff; I like alot of SixofSpades ideas, from a philosophical point of view.

 

I do have to say that I actually started doing this for an Iron-Modder like fun challenge, and from the whole point of "equal access for everyone" because I don't like restricting player choice when it comes to this romance stuff. I have no problems defining a major BioWare NPC by their ingame hints, but most of the others are extrapolations of "extras" roles. And, frankly, an opportunity to present materials that are a little more open to same sex interpretation, because much material out there is pretty biased towards traditional gender roles. Thought it would be an intersting challenge.

 

The idea of restrictions for reasonable roleplayability is solid and tested stuff, done by most major NPC mods by default (including stat-checks, alignment checks, a plethora of romance-kills) all designed to make the modder's character more "real" in response. To tell the truth, I did not think that folks would be so "passionate" about a fun interlude, but I think it is worth looking at, and making sure that people who play dwarves, gnomes, and half-orcs have some options.

 

As a proponent of player choice, I like the idea of having a "restriction/no restriction" available in install. For quick implementation, just grab the OUTER_SPRINT of the variables, where %RE_myNPC_ RESTRICTIONS% = blank for option 1, and filled in for option 2.

[Domi]

Oh, zut, I don't think this argument actually belongs here, because it has nothing to do with the RE, which is a fine mod, and if I'd ever play BG2, I'd use it in whichever form it should be. If moderators want to chop off the generic restrictions argument thread into a separate entity in a general discussion, this post will *definetly* belong there.

 

The idea of restrictions for reasonable roleplayability is solid and tested stuff, done by most major NPC mods by default (including stat-checks, alignment checks, a plethora of romance-kills) all designed to make the modder's character more "real" in response.

 

I am not so sure about it. I still think that prohibitive restrictions that leave the player with no choice but to comply are a bad thing, because they require foreknowledge. You have to create a particular character to romance an NPC to mechanically 'click', instead of trying to woo the NPC and showing your worth as a romantic partner.

 

Say, I am playing a half-orc. How does the mod author know just how unattractive my half-orc is? That it is inappealing to his NPC by the vurtue of being a half-orc? What if he or she is the most charming, intelligent and noble half-orc that is out there? That he is actually worse than an ugly, scarred, deranged human?

 

And I have a major problem with mods that restrict romances based on Intelligence and do not take into an account the Wisdom and other stats. I am sorry, folk, but how is a character with Int 11, 18 Charisma and 17 Wisdom is inferrior as a romantic option to someone with Intelligence 13, Charisma 8 and Wisdom 8? (with a romance restriction asking for Intel>12) To be honest, that first person sounds far more attractive and to be honest, smart to me when you take into account all stats.

 

And, to be honest, where prohibitive restrictions are concerned, I think that player's choice (do not engage, if you don't think your character does not meet the requirements) is a valid thing when commbined with the NPC weighing what PC has to say. Because the stats are wishy-washy, because we all interpret the characters differently, because stats alone do not take into account WHO your character is, but just WHAT. I for one think that Edwin will only romance a silly girl who would worship him and drool at his every word, when plenty other people think he requires an intellectual 'challenging' relationship!

 

While adding an option to place restrictions/no restrictions at install sounds like the way to have the cake and eat it too... am I the only one who thinks that it's excessive? That this practice to put everything as an option into an install is starting to border on paranoia?

[berelinde]

This thing already has 41 separately installable components. I don't know if we want 81. I certainly don't.

[Immortality]

Ugh, yes, that's the small detail of making restriced and unrestricted components... (but wouldnt there be 82 components then? mwahah, sorry)

 

Make 2 mods! yay, everyone happy! (except, maybe not the modders who have to do all that...)

[cmorgan]

I was suggesting using variables to stop the bloat of components.

 

If you install and are asked

 

"Restrictions?" Y N

 

Y = OUTER_SET ~RE_SHERI_ RESTRICTIONS~ ~Class(Player1,X) Gender(Player1,X), etc. etc. ad infinitum~

 

N = OUTER_SET ~RE_SHERI_ RESTRICTIONS~ ~~

 

Which results in the "availability block" being

 

IF
//some conditions here
%RE_SHERI_ RESTRICTIONS%
Global("RE_SHERIMATCH","GLOBAL",0)
THEN
RESPONSE #100
Global("RE_SHERIMATCH","GLOBAL",1)
END

 

I personally think restrictions as a way of adding and taking away options is a valid one. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is "good" - just that it is "accepted"

 

Romance match variables in BG1 NPC are well reasoned for the characters (from that particular set of author's views), and the use of wisdom and intelligence (as well as random number function) provide a diminishing set of choices based on class, stat, gender, etc., etc.

 

But I would argue that they are unfairly handicapping roleplayers. Who says that the characters are not homosexual? Or that SharTeel might prefer the wimpy, quiet, goody-goody mage type, a polar opposite? The authors in question ( ) set up solid ways in which they felt the characters should be seen, remaining internally consistent. But in the best of all possible roleplaying worlds, all that would be influenced by the options the player chooses in dialogue, not in the systemic streamlining of storyline possibilities.

 

For me, fundamentally, player availablilty of choice trumps everything except good taste. If you are roleplaying a Berserker character with an intelligence of 3, and the reactions include

 

"The last time I was deciphering the Scroll of Metamagic for fun while doing a Rashemi crossword, I wanted to ask my friend Elminster that question."

 

and you chose it,

 

Well, you aren't roleplaying.

 

But, fortunately or unfortunately, the limitations of engine, modding energy, character consistency, and most of all sheer *time* demand that often some restrictions be installed for internally consistent characterizations. Can you imagine the necessary adjustments to dialogue if modders wrote from a truly freeing perspective, with no restrictions?

 

CHAIN ~%IMOEN_BANTER%~ C-ImoenBanterOneContinued
~I dunno, <CHARNAME>... I'm not sure you should be steppin' into that room with Renal, so friendly-like... I wouldn't trust him...~
== ~%JAHERIA_BANTER%~ ~All beings must be free to express themselves freely, Imoen - let <CHARNAME> make the decision <PROHIMHER>self.~
END
++ ~A succinct and direct observation, Imoen. Do not worry. I will ensure that no opportunity is wasted to turn the tables on our slippery friend, and return to you safely.~
++ ~I am afraid that while my intelligence says 'no', his leather clad derriere beckons 'yes' - I do enjoy men in leather.~
++ ~Imoen, this isn't really your business.~
++ ~Imoen, I won't step in there, if you tell me not to.~
++ ~Shut up, Imoen, you think I'm stupid?~
++ ~Duuuh *drools* whazza Renal?~
... (12 options later) ...
++ ~Naahhh... not gonna sleep with him, Imoen. I like women.~
++ ~Naahhh... not gonna sleep with him, Imoen. I like taller men.~
++ ~Naahhh... not gonna sleep with him, Imoen. I like shorter hair.~
++ ~Naahhh... not gonna sleep with him, Imoen. I like to tease, but don't like to follow through.~
...(47 options later)...
++ ~I won't go sleep with Renal, Imoen, because I lust for you.~
++ ~I won't go sleep with Renal, Imoen, because I lust for Jaheira~
++ ~I won't go sleep with Renal, Imoen, because I lust for Minsc.~
... (36 options later) ...
++ ~As I am a fighter, I prefer the direct approach, Imoen. I shall take command of this situation, and tryst with him.~
... (a zillion combinations of options later) ...
++ ~You know, Imoen, I have forgotten what it is I am responding to. Could you page back 26 dialogue screens to where you originally asked the question?~

 

 

I don't know about paranoia; I just like the idea of choices. At one early point in the coding, the gender, haircolor, and eyecolor of Sheri were set into player choice on install. If a 'perfect' seductive Bardess were a red-haired, green eyed female, then ok -

 

"Sheri moves towards you in the moonlight, her

 

blood-red

raven's wing black

straw-blonde

light chestnut

spiky pink

shaggy green

steel grey

snow white

 

hair catching a stray moonbeam as her scent fills the night air."

The process was abandoned when berelinde kindly pointed out that the available player choices for setting up the encounter would take longer than a complete playthrough of the whole component

 

One of the few mods that tries for this freedom is the Imoen Romance. It opens up another kettle of discussion topics, mostly about what "good taste" is. For right or wrong, the mod author allows the protagonist to engage in self(and other)-destuctive behavior, including and not limited to rape, brutality, incest, torture (psychological and physical), and other taboo topics.

 

I don't know what prompted this semi-dissertation, sorry. I guess my point is that I know that Domi's point makes very good sense to me, but SixofSpade's points make just as much sense. The "playability" factor comes into how far an author is willing to go toward's Domi's player-driven romance, and how far you have to curtail player options in order to make a streamlined, internally consistent story.

[SixOfSpades]

Wow, that was original, I was expecting "it was my brother"... Got me there...

If you have some sort of personal attack to make against me, or some meaningless 'crime' you'd like to accuse me of, out with it. But before you do, however, know that I don't think I ever post as 'Guest,' except maybe on forums like Spellhold Studios or Blackwyrm Lair that I only visit once in a blue moon. Besides, I've already proven that I'm not in the least shy about posting constructive criticism under my own name; why should I want to do the same thing under the guise of anonymity?

 

 

If your vision of a certain character is that they are without restriction, then obviously that's fine, but I don't find "just don't pick the option" a compelling argument, because if the possibility is there, then for right or for wrong, you have written the NPC in that way.

Exactly, thank you. I knew somebody would find the words I was looking for.

 

 

It would have made sense, if every character was able to make a pass at every RE character and was able to get a definite answer, like Ajnos mentioned. I agree. But... if a male half-orc was able to make a pass at Kelsey, would it really add to the story? I am not sure.

Admittedly, it wouldn't add much. But hey, I've always wanted to play a Half-Orc Bard; and a Half-Orc playa Bard could only be even more fun, hitting on anything and everything that moves--when he gets shot down, he simply grins & moves on to the next potential ho. Don't chu be hatin', now.

 

 

How does the mod author know just how unattractive my half-orc is? That it is inappealing to his NPC by the vurtue of being a half-orc? What if he or she is the most charming, intelligent and noble half-orc that is out there?

That's . . . exactly why I wanted stat checks in the first place. If all the mod author uses is gender and race, then all concepts such as attractive (CHA), intelligent (INT) and noble (Rep) can never even come into play.

 

I have a major problem with mods that restrict romances based on Intelligence and do not take into an account the Wisdom and other stats.

I quite agree, that's why I made my suggested changes depend on a quite varied number of stats: Rather than relying on nothing but CHA, I made sure that STR, DEX, INT, alignment, Reputation, and even PartyGold all got a mention, along with the ubiquitous race & gender. I even had CON in there at one point, and I would have had WIS for Weathermistress Ada if I hadn't done her first and/or had realized that I already had enough Rep. checks.

Granted, the perfect romance would check all of these things, and would allow a protagonist with a low CHA if their INT & WIS were high enough to make the difference, etc., etc., but nobody wants to code that.

 

I for one think that Edwin will only romance a silly girl who would worship him and drool at his every word, when plenty other people think he requires an intellectual 'challenging' relationship!

That's a very valid viewpoint, and I for one agree with most of it: I excluded those whom Edwin would find difficult to dominate physically and who therefore would intimidate him (Half-Orcs & pureclassed Warriors), and his high CHA requirement was because he's arrogant enough to know that he deserves the very best. The only thing we seem to differ on would be the INT requirement I posted, and I included that because of his known aversion to moronic simians. The worshipping and drooling would naturally occur through the protagonist's dialogue options.

 

 

This thing already has 41 separately installable components. I don't know if we want 81. I certainly don't.

The "bloat of components" could easily be forestalled by making 2 separate mods, as Immortality says. But we could also do much better than that: Install all 40 individual encounters as one component. Unless anybody can think of a reason why someone would like to flirt with Ilona, but not Sheri? (Noober might be an exception to this, though.)

 

 

I personally think restrictions as a way of adding and taking away options is a valid one. I don't subscribe to the theory that it is "good" - just that it is "accepted." Romance match variables in BG1 NPC are well reasoned for the characters (from that particular set of author's views), and the use of wisdom and intelligence (as well as random number function) provide a diminishing set of choices based on class, stat, gender, etc., etc. But I would argue that they are unfairly handicapping roleplayers. . . .

In the best of all possible roleplaying worlds, all that would be influenced by the options the player chooses in dialogue, not in the systemic streamlining of storyline possibilities.

Hm. I disagree with that because, for the most part, the recruitable NPCs in BG1 have very clear, pre-established personalities, and it would be wrong to try to change that, no matter what the current player might want to roleplay. Jaheira is no more a shy, naive innocent with a strong penchant for frilly pink dresses than Sarevok is a devotee of Ilmater. Strip away their actual personalities and they cease to be characters at all--they're just classes and kits with stats that follow you around and kill stuff, you might as well have rolled up a party in Multiplayer.

And even if you do this with a brand-new NPC (recruitable or not) that you made yourself, a character that can be made to do anything at all is a character that has no character--you've simply written another Biff the Understudy.

 

Who says that the characters [in BG1 NPC] are not homosexual? Or that SharTeel might prefer the wimpy, quiet, goody-goody mage type, a polar opposite? The authors in question set up solid ways in which they felt the characters should be seen, remaining internally consistent.

Dovetailing into what I just said, modders should have every right to give existing NPCs any character trait they feel like, provided of course that it meshed with their already-established personality. Minsc could be a fanatical coin collector, as a way to keep souveneirs from all the lands he's visited. And even though it was never stated in the original game, Shar-Teel would obviously be a lesbian: The only time she would touch men with a stick would be in order to inflict 1D6+3 Blunt damage. Now, a modder might well write a friendship/romance path in which a very persuasive Male PC gradually changes Shar-Teel's views on that subject, but for them to assume that Shar-Teel's affections could be won immediately, simply by beating her up, would be a sheer abuse of modding power, not to mention totally out of character and an attempt to set the gender equality movement back by about 30 years.

 

"Sheri moves towards you in the moonlight, her

blood-red

raven's wing black

straw-blonde

light chestnut

spiky pink

shaggy green

steel grey

snow white

hair catching a stray moonbeam as her scent fills the night air."

WIN

[Immortality]

Question to the modders: Is v2 and following versions going to have "mandatory" restrictions ? If so, can you please leave v1 available too?

 

Thx!

[Kulyok]

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your question, but if you are asking what new restrictions we are implementing, it's all in this very thread:

 

berelinde's Weathermistress Ada encounter will be restricted to 'tall' races only(if you're a gnome/halfling/dwarf, you're out of luck),

 

and jastey's Hendak encounter will be open to all alignments, though your reputation must be above 11 to gain his affection.

 

Other than that, it's the same as v1.

[Immortality]

Well, the thread is so ... that I rather ask directly, because I wasnt sure if you were talking all this ... into consideration.

 

The question was exactly that, if in v2 more restrictions were going to be implemented or not. I was just making sure

 

Thx!

[Evaine Dian]

Well, the thread is so ... that I rather ask directly, because I wasnt sure if you were talking all this ... into consideration.

Hell no.