Warriors at the Gate: #23 The Shut Up Variable

Remove all ads!

There's always a lot of back and forthing between two camps on mod players: The NPCs that talk all the bloody time being loved or loathed.

You know the sort? The ones stuck on 11 for conversation. The ones the hold a small discussion over every magic item or kill over the size of a pony.

Personally I like to reserve the right to say "Dear gods, woman, are you *still* talking???" to rare real life situations.

Now, I enjoy dialogue, but more often than not I'll be imagining discussions rather than jerkily clicking a myriad of three option responses (Holy Warrior, Apathetic Adventurer, Baby Eater.)

So what gives? Should you be able to tailor how often an NPC speaks without causing offence? Should dialogues be simplified to 'right' and 'wrong' responses? Is simplicity better than offering choice? After all, if say, you pick up a paladin - should the dialogues presume you have similar views? Should the paladin up and say "Sorry guys, I just noticed you dudes glow red when I squint and tilt my head at an angle, I'm off!"

More often than not you have to dig deep to find out more about an NPC, watch their reactions. A lot of the time though the mod NPCs around have the literary depth of the player character, it leaves me wondering if there is meant to be a shift in focus of the player or if there is a problem of "implied inference"

It's something that struck me in a brief exchange of comments with Crucis in an IWD2 topic.

When you write about what you know, there will always be gaps. Sometimes massive gaping holes, other times perhaps a tiny grain that can be picked up be re-reading and thinking ahead. It all depends on how obvious facts that are grounded on the modders' knowledge and preconceptions work their way into a module. For example, the general thoughts on Anomen are: The guy is a tool.

Why? What specifically makes him toolworthy? How does his status of toolishness make him the butt of every joke? When does satisfaction of another verbal smackdown turn into the two dimensional party verbal abuse recepticle?

I personally dislike Korgan, I'd rather enjoy the challenge of writing an NPC that grows fond of the little bastard then stream out a bunch of half-witty midget jokes. I prefer to do that in private

There is also the risk of circular logic in creating any sort of character.
"Why does she like gold?" Because she's a thief!
"Why is she a thief?" Because she likes gold!
*whap*
Even seven sins reasoning on motivation is better than circular logic. Though a characters *personality* can have circular reasoning within themselves
"I want to get more gold, then I can buy more expensive clothing and appear more impressive, then I will use that to get more gold so I can be even grander..."

Then there is motivation for travelling with the character, why? Maybe it's just me but I'm suspicious of anybody that doesn't seem to have a real reason to be in my party, oh they may be a sterling addition... but what are they hiding? What aren't they telling me? Why can't I find out?

I enjoy probing party members in unusual, verbal and potentially illegal ways just to find out "What are you doing here?" I enjoyed the unveiling nature of PS:T and KotOR so perhaps that influences me a lot, I love a good (however small) mystery.

How many people read the biographies of NPCs? I tend to put short ones on my character and any I design or play with and make the players ask questions to find out what a character is really about. It seems more realistic than nothing else, especially when the biographies and variables associated with it are harder to check and alter, it's not like you can put readBiography=1 to see if someone has looked at the page.