Divinity Divinity: Original Sin - Enhanced Edition

[Rupuka]

Except you are dealing with the consequence of a choice you didn't make.

You don't pick the personality of your characters? My version of the game must be buggy. Beyond how bad the mechanic may be I can't understand the mentality of picking a violent personality or the "I want to attack these drunk assholes" option and then getting mad because the game "force" you to fight. And not killing them is totally not an option because if you don't... they are still hostile if you go there again, and considering the numbers of times you are forced to revisit the tutorial dungeon, that's just not practical.

 

[t]

He wants to be sent some DMs? As in, please pack your DM and send him to us so we can have a nice role playing session?

 

[Mareus]

So keep the ai personalities but make them completely irrelevant except for some flavor here and there.

Well, the consequences in Divinity hardly qualify as real consequences, since consequences just boil down to the binary way of how to solve a quest. For example: throw the intelligent shell in the water and end its suffering, or sell it for some quick gold; let the guards follow you, or make the guards hostile. Besides, most good RPGs allow you to solve quests in various ways, with the difference that it is actually you who makes the choice, not a dice roll.

And why do you people bitch about these rock paper scissors minigames anyway, it's not like the game wasn't lulzy in the first place. If you want a true simulation of an AI personality, then deal with the fucking consequences. If not, then just choose the loyal one.

My goodness, golfer. Its not a true simulation of an AI personality if disagreements are handled by a dice roll and its not a true simulation of an AI personality if the guy just nods his head at whatever you say. Besides, you just equated "character choice" with the "choice the player makes in the options menu". I told you already. Stick to golf, cause you obviously have no clue what roleplaying means.

In most RPGs the choice how to solve moral dilemmas is left to the player, with the player having to deal with the consequences of that choice. For example, Baldur's Gate which you defined as quote: "choose the best answer metagame", allows you to actually make choices and then hits you hard with consequences of your choices, since the rest of the party that does not agree with the choices you make will protest and argue with you, they will leave your party and sometimes will even attack you or start fighting among themselves. What they will not do is throw a dice to settle an argument. Divinity lets you make a choice and then if the other player is not happy with that choice, resolves the matter with a dice roll. After that you are left with playing along with the decision you have not made and with no effective way to somehow go against that particular route.

 

[Mareus]

Depends on your personal taste, imho.

There is personal taste, and then there is failing at logic.

 

[Ulminati]

In regards to the personality headaches: Unless a patch changed it since I finished the game, you can suppress the personality of a PC by initiating the dialogue with them. I had <CHARNAME> do most of the dialogue. But when it came to puzzles where they had to agree on an answer, I switched to sidekick #1.

Sounds like they're gearing up for that ultimate RPG:

Swen Vincke ‏@LarAtLarian 4m

We're going to be hiring narrative & system designers btw - anybody in Köln with experience who wants to try out Gent, send me a DM.

Any particular kind of DM? I know a couple of pathfinder DMs and a GURPS DM I could spare.

 

[RK47]

Whisper to their dongs.
Not here.

 

[Mareus]

In regards to the personality headaches: Unless a patch changed it since I finished the game, you can suppress the personality of a PC by initiating the dialogue with them. I had <CHARNAME> do most of the dialogue. But when it came to puzzles where they had to agree on an answer, I switched to sidekick #1.

Can you elaborate a bit? I don't understand how can you suppress the personality of a PC by initiating a dialogue with them. What does suppressing the personality do? Perhaps this was in an old patch, because I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[J_C]

I don't understand thie either.

 

[Ulminati]

The personality that makes them chose idiotic responses for the rock paper scissors game. It only triggers if they were not the one to initiate the dialogue. So by keeping my main character with no personality/companion ai/whatevs, I can switch to the sidekick for the puzzles that absolutely require you to pick the right answer and toggle his dumbfuckery off long enough to pass it.

 

[Mareus]

The personality that makes them chose idiotic responses for the rock paper scissors game. It only triggers if they were not the one to initiate the dialogue. So by keeping my main character with no personality/companion ai/whatevs, I can switch to the sidekick for the puzzles that absolutely require you to pick the right answer and toggle his dumbfuckery off long enough to pass it.

If I remember correctly, when I play with AI completely off I get to choose the answer for both characters. Playing with only one character having AI on, and letting him start the dialogues I have not tried, but from what you are saying (if I understood it right), this would only allow me to choose the answer myself for both characters. However, that just equals to turning the AI off, and as I have explained before it is not really a fix. However J_C might find this useful since he is actually advocating a partial fix that would keep the AI system as it is, but would remove the conversations which can affect a quest outcome. Your method might allow him to effectively jump between AI off and on depending on the situation. Still, one would have to know in advance whether or not an NPC you start talking with will give you a quest or not.

 

[Gord]

In most RPGs the choice how to solve moral dilemmas is left to the player, with the player having to deal with the consequences of that choice. For example, Baldur's Gate which you defined as quote: "choose the best answer metagame", allows you to actually make choices and then hits you hard with consequences of your choices, since the rest of the party that does not agree with the choices you make will protest and argue with you, they will leave your party and sometimes will even attack you or start fighting among themselves. What they will not do is throw a dice to settle an argument. Divinity lets you make a choice and then if the other player is not happy with that choice, resolves the matter with a dice roll. After that you are left with playing along with the decision you have not made and with no effective way to somehow go against that particular route.

Most cRPGs provide no fucking consequences whatsoever outside of the outcome to the quest itself. Consequences within your party due to conflicting good-vs-evil binary morality are an exception (which games, aside from some IE games did that, anyway?).
In the case of D:OS it would anyway only make sense to implement something like that with the companions (i.e. Jahan and Madora and hopefully any others that will be introduced eventually in patches). The two main characters are clearly intended by Larian to stay together - the whole design (from mechanics to backstory) is build around two main characters.
One might not like that, but it's the way it is - and therefore whatever you do, keeping both main chars in the party is, at least currently, mandatory.

If you chose to give them an AI personality - that means that they might make decisions you don't like. As Ulminati said, there's a workaround for those decisions you absolutely can't live without when insisting on using the personalities. Nevertheless, this is a cRPG and as such has the limits of all cRPGs. You have pre-fabricated consequences build around some design principles (like the two-character thing) so every outcome will be limited by that.
Personally I find the AI personalities to be an interesting approach to cRPGs, even if that sometimes means that I don't get the intended outcome.

The decision-making mechanics are typical RPG mechanics, however. Your characters have conflicting opinions and want to convince the other that they are right. What do you do in an RPG? You chose an abstract mechanic taking into account your skill at arguing, the situation and some influence of chance. In other words, you do a dice roll. What's so confusing and/or unusual about that?
Now in D:OS you have the somewhat strange RPS mini-game on top of it. Space-bar should bypass it in favour of a roll, but as of now that option is bugged and seems to produce a 50:50 chance all the time. Guess that will be fixed in one of the next patches, though.

If I remember correctly, when I play with AI completely off I get to choose the answer for both characters. Playing with only one character having AI on, and letting him start the dialogues I have not tried, but from what you are saying (if I understood it right), this would only allow me to choose the answer myself for both characters. However, that just equals to turning the AI off, and as I have explained before it is not really a fix.

Not quite. It means that you make the decisions for whatever char is active and initiating dialogue.
In case both have an AI personality, the one which is controlled by you is using your input, the other one is using the personality you gave him.
So if one AI personality is choosing an answer you don't like, you can bypass it for this conversation/decision (with the caveat that the other char might still make a bad decision due to his AI, but you can e.g. set your "main" char to loyal AI).

 

[NotAGolfer]

Thank you for that lengthy reply, Gord, esp. on how CRPGs use proxy mechanics like throwing dice to simulate stuff they can't realistically implement fully.
Hilarious how the guy who doesn't even get that stuff suggests me to stick to golf.

also, since I missed that one:

Likewise, the mark of bad design is having the freedom of choice taken away from the player. Now, I know you cannot always get what you want, but when that is the case one needs a better explanation then just a random dice roll.

The dice roll is not the explanation, dumbass.

The dice roll is not the explanation, dumbass.

Nice strawman. Dice roll being an explanation are your words, not mine.

Seriously, fuck off.

 

[Mareus]

Most cRPGs provide no fucking consequences whatsoever outside of the outcome to the quest itself. Consequences within your party due to conflicting good-vs-evil binary morality are an exception (which games, aside from some IE games did that, anyway?).

True, I should have used the term most good RPGs. As for which games outside IE games did that, well.. you have Fallout games, where characters and the world actively respond to your choices throughout the game. Vampire the Masquarade: Bloodlines, Arcanum, Kotor games, even Deus Ex, Witcher etc. Now, true not all of these games had the same level of C&C, but they certainly offered more than Divinity and all of these games had C&C outside of the outcome of the quest itself.

In the case of D:OS it would anyway only make sense to implement something like that with the companions (i.e. Jahan and Madora and hopefully any others that will be introduced eventually in patches). The two main characters are clearly intended by Larian to stay together - the whole design (from mechanics to backstory) is build around two main characters.

And nobody is advocating that this aspect should be changed. I have no problem with 2 main characters. I have a problem with the dice roll deciding how to solve particular moral dilemmas. And if you start the game with two main characters, that does not mean that you need to finish it that way. The game certainly supports single player game and there are already mods that allow you to start the game completely alone.

One might not like that, but it's the way it is - and therefore whatever you do, keeping both main chars in the party is, at least currently, mandatory.

Again, I repeat. You misunderstood the problem. Nobody is complaining about having 2 main characters.

If you chose to give them an AI personality - that means that they might make decisions you don't like.

Except that they are not making the decisions. They do what the dice tells them to do.

As Ulminati said, there's a workaround for those decisions you absolutely can't live without when insisting on using the personalities.

Except that there is no workaround if you don't know ahead of time which NPC might start a problematic quest. For example, how could have I known that those two drunkards will start a dialogue which will make my other character attack them? And when my other character starts a fight with the guards, because I failed the RPS minigame, there is nothing else I can do then kill those guards. Even if I decide to kill my other character who started the whole mess, the guards remain hostile and keep trying to kill me. I submit to you that that does not qualify as a workaround.

Personally I find the AI personalities to be an interesting approach to cRPGs, even if that sometimes means that I don't get the intended outcome.

Interesting does not equal good. I have no problem with not getting an intended outcome, but you can't just expect people to fall in line about moral dilemmas based on a dice roll. I would much rather have the ability to decide who is the leader of the party and then implement something a kin to Baldur's Gate where characters can protest and leave me. Having random dice rolls decide the course of action is just stupid. I understand the limitations and problems that led Larian down this path, I just question their decision as the correct one.

The decision-making mechanics are typical RPG mechanics, however. Your characters have conflicting opinions and want to convince the other that they are right. What do you do in an RPG? You chose an abstract mechanic taking into account your skill at arguing, the situation and some influence of chance. In other words, you do a dice roll. What's so confusing and/or unusual about that?

Nothing, except that in most RPGs these things do not determine things like good/evil courses of action, since most game developers understand that the course of action should be left to the player. Persuasion is therefore limmited to things like extracting information, or trying to persuade some NPC to do something he is not really willing to do. Likewise in most RPGs the failure of persuasion will not result in making you sell another sentient being into slavery for a quick buck, but will leave things open for other ways to approach the quest.

 

[Mareus]

Seriously, fuck off.

Well, as my grandpa used to say: "When you fail at making valid arguments, there is always a simple insult."

 

[Gord]

Interesting does not equal good. I have no problem with not getting an intended outcome, but you can't just expect people to fall in line about moral dilemmas based on a dice roll. I would much rather have the ability to decide who is the leader of the party and then implement something a kin to Baldur's Gate where characters can protest and leave me. Having random dice rolls decide the course of action is just stupid. I understand the limitations and problems that led Larian down this path, I just question their decision as the correct one.

Well, it isn't based on a dice role. What choice a not-player-controlled character makes is determined by the respective AI personality, not a dice-roll (unless you use the random AI).
The dice-roll determines only the outcome of the internal conflict within the party, i.e. it will only be made if there's a conflicting view upon a certain topic in the party.
And even then it should (should as it seems to be bugged as of now) be based on the respective character's charisma, not pure random chance.

You seem to imply that if some conflict arises (like whether to refuse the drunken soldiers or not), each char should stay with their opinion and not yield to any discussion.
That can't work however in the framework of a 2-character-party-based game most of the time.

 

[Mareus]

Well, it isn't based on a dice role. What choice a not-player-controlled character makes is determined by the respective AI personality, not a dice-roll (unless you use the random AI).

Yes, the choice the other character makes is based on the respective AI personality, but which choice between character 1 and character 2 will be accepted is based on a dice roll. So again, you miss the point just as the golfie-boy does.

 

[Gord]

What point is there to miss? The game follows a normal RPG mechanic in deciding something via a dice-roll that is based on the skills of your characters.
It's obvious why Larian has done it that way. Mind, I understand that some people do not like that an "unruly" AI might lead to undesired outcomes (and you say yourself that you don't care about that either), but I think the way it is done is a logical consequence of Larians concept behind the AI personalities and 2-player coop.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

What point is there to miss? The game follows a normal RPG mechanic in deciding something via a dice-roll that is based on the skills of your characters.
It's obvious why Larian has done it that way. Mind, I understand that some people do not like that an "unruly" AI might lead to undesired outcomes (and you say yourself that you don't care about that either), but I think the way it is done is a logical consequence of Larians concept behind the AI personalities and 2-player coop.

Its all good and true.

BUTT FUCK CO-OP

 

[Mareus]

What point is there to miss?

The point that Divinity is the only RPG in existence where moral dilemmas and how to approach the quest are resolved with a RPS minigame.

The game follows a normal RPG mechanic in deciding something via a dice-roll that is based on the skills of your characters. It's obvious why Larian has done it that way. Mind, I understand that some people do not like that an "unruly" AI might lead to undesired outcomes (and you say yourself that you don't care about that either), but I think the way it is done is a logical consequence of Larians concept behind the AI personalities and 2-player coop.

The problem is not unruly AI that does not agree with you, nor is the problem that sometimes you get undesired outcomes. The problem is that moral dilemmas and choices how to approach quests are determined by an unruly RPS mechanic.

Look. Its very simple. Person A wants to rescue a friend from prison by utterly destroying the whole city, all that they have; and slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Person B thinks there is a more direct way to rescue his friend from prison, that does not involve massacre on the scale not seen since the massacre of Amalekites. The one dollar question is, should decisions like this be handled by a random dice roll? So, I have no problem having disagreements in my party with unruly AI - in fact I want an unruly AI in my game. I have no problem with getting undesired outcomes, such as my party member refusing to help me in my quest or having leadership penalties or even betraying me later in the game - in fact I encourage developers to surprise me with the outcome based on my choices. I even do not have a problem with persuading an NPC to unlock the door for me via this RPS mechanic. But what I most certainly do not want is random dice rolls determining whether or not we shall slaughter the Amalekites as described above. What is it that you do not understand here that you keep missing the point?

You can have it in 2 player coop for all I care, since I do not play multiplayer games, but for crying out loud how can you defend such a feature in a single player game?

You certainly seem more intelligent than that guy that plays golf, but just like him you keep missing the point I am making and you keep misinterpreting my arguments.

 

[Gord]

Look. Its very simple. Person A wants to rescue a friend from prison by utterly destroying the whole city, all that they have; and slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Person B thinks there is a more direct way to rescue his friend from prison, that does not involve massacre on the scale not seen since the massacre of Amalekites. The one dollar question is, should decisions like this be handled by a random dice roll? So, I have no problem having disagreements in my party with unruly AI - in fact I want an unruly AI in my game. I have no problem with getting undesired outcomes, such as my party member refusing to help me in my quest or having leadership penalties or even betraying me later in the game - in fact I encourage developers to surprise me with the outcome based on my choices. I even do not have a problem with persuading an NPC to unlock the door for me via this RPS mechanic. But what I most certainly do not want is something is random dice rolls determining whether or not we shall slaughter the Amalekites as described above. What is it that you do not understand here that you keep missing the point?

You can have it in 2 player coop for all I care, since I do not play multiplayer games, but for crying out loud how can you defend such a feature in a single player game?

Now let's forget a moment that your example is somewhat exaggerated, yes, I think that the way it's done in D:OS is how it should be done within the scope of that game.
The idea is to present controversies with conflicting solutions and make the party choose one of those. If conflict arises your party will have to come to a decision by doing a roll that is based upon the abilities of your characters. That is one part of my point here - it's not a simple, random die roll (again, with the exception of the mentioned bug). It's influenced by your characters and circumstances. You want better chances? Put some points into charisma and perception (or intelligence? whatever makes you able to see what selection is giving you a bonus).

Mind you, if Larian puts in an option to restrict the AI to flavour text so you can get your bonuses to the various traits, but it's switched of for quests and such, I'm fine with that. I do still think that it's fun having to deal with the consequences from the AI personalities. If I don't want them, I turn them of (or use the workaround, even though you don't like it).

 

[Mareus]

You seem to imply that if some conflict arises (like whether to refuse the drunken soldiers or not), each char should stay with their opinion and not yield to any discussion.
That can't work however in the framework of a 2-character-party-based game most of the time.

I either missed this part or you wrote it later. In any case, there are many ways around it and you just haven't been paying attention it seems. Even in a 2 player co-op mode (not that I am interested in that) you can have a mechanic that is based on skill for example, so that at least it was not determined on pure luck. Something a kin to battle cards comes to mind. Or you can for example have a skill check and the person who has the highest skill count wins. If they are two completely identical characters they can settle it with a duel or by a mechanic that requires at least some skill from the player - as I have already explained. Also Larian could implement a third option - something like compromise if the agreement cannot be reached. They could also add short descriptions that would add to the roleplaying and at least make these minigames somewhat bearable. They could look something like this: "The two hunters then went into a furious exchange of arguments, each presenting their own point of view. The two guards kept drinking ale while our heroes were busy debating, sometimes even threatening each other, until finally they reached a conclusion." Anything, even having the character who initiates the dialogue make the choice would be better, and let the players argue online what is the best course of action. Then you wouldn't even have to simulate the debate because people would have a real debate online. You could add here the option that the first player cannot make the choice, until the second player agrees to it. Until that happens let the people argue online. Why is that a problem?

 

[Mareus]

Now let's forget a moment that your example is somewhat exaggerated, yes, I think that the way it's done in D:OS is how it should be done within the scope of that game.

Ok, when I asked you how you can defend such a feature I think it was obvious that I am not interested in your opinion, since it is equally obvious from what you wrote that you are ok with the way things currently are. I want to know WHY do you think that this is how it should be done, and when I say WHY I mean, please make a valid argument for a change.

The idea is to present controversies with conflicting solutions and make the party choose one of those. If conflict arises your party will have to come to a decision by doing a roll that is based upon the abilities of your characters. That is one part of my point here - it's not a simple, random die roll (again, with the exception of the mentioned bug). It's influenced by your characters and circumstances. You want better chances? Put some points into charisma and perception (or intelligence? whatever makes you able to see what selection is giving you a bonus).

And as I have already explained, I have put two points into charisma and I keep failing the RPS minigame. I honestly win on a 50:50 ratio, but even if I was winning on a 80:20 ratio, I still think it is plain stupid to let luck determine how to handle moral dilemmas. And as I already explained there are ways around this problem even in 2 player co op.

 

[Internet]

The RPS minigame is currently bugged, I think somebody in this thread told it will be fixed in a patch?
Assuming it will turn into a dice roll with chances of success based by your charisma stat, I'm fine with that. You don't really influence "moral choices" that way. Your character makes his choice/solves his deep moral dilemma/whatever and subsequently either fails or succeeds to influence his party based on a roll that is tied to one of his stats.
This is a generally silly/lighthearted game where larping deep moral choices doesn't really apply, so I don't understand why this would bother somebody so much.

 

[Mangoose]

The minigame does not only depend on Charisma. Your dialogue choice gives a modifier to your "skill number" in the minigame. Granted the dialogue choice modifier IMO should be stronger (it's only +1/0/-1).

And as I have already explained, I have put two points into charisma and I keep failing the RPS minigame

Your charisma (+ attitude + dialogue choice) affects how many bubbles you fill up every "roll." Yes, the roll is completely random, but if your number is higher, you don't have to win as many rolls as your opponent.

 

[Internet]

I was referring to the "skip with spacebar" button (I assume that's what was being discussed).