More flavorful dialogue choices in the future

[Razard]

“Hey guys. Can you guys put in dialogue choices so I can rp as literally the worst D&D/Role playing game stereotype?”

How about no.

[Theodric]

“Hey guys. Can you guys put in dialogue choices so I can rp as literally the worst D&D/Role playing game stereotype?”

How about no.

It'd be entirely optional and you'd have the ability to simply...not pick the dialogue options that you dislike. I wouldn't pick them myself, though I also don't pick the options that make the Warrior of Darkness come across as utterly stupid. For those who find such things hilarious, though, it's an option. So there's minimal downside to adding further choices as to how our character chooses to react to situations.

It's also completely subjective as to whether it's the 'worst' stereotype in the first place. Personally I'd consider the obsession with 'zany' characters to be far more irritating but that's just me.

[Lauront]

It'd be entirely optional and you'd have the ability to simply...not pick the dialogue options that you dislike. I wouldn't pick them myself, though I also don't pick the options that make the Warrior of Darkness come across as utterly stupid. For those who find such things hilarious, though, it's an option. So there's minimal downside to adding further choices as to how our character chooses to react to situations.

It's also completely subjective as to whether it's the 'worst' stereotype in the first place. Personally I'd consider the obsession with 'zany' characters to be far more irritating but that's just me.

The problem is with people like that, they can't understand why different people enjoy different things, hence you get the negative and narrow-minded responses like his. Much as he may protest otherwise, it's clear to me that he is utterly incapable of putting himself in the shoes of others and tries to hide this through the veil of "literally the worst" to try shut it down.

For people who just want RPGs to be feel-good hugboxes and utilise the euphemism of "heroic fantasy" to describe this (as if these don't have their own darker elements), of course anything veering off that course - which many of us enjoy in other RPGs - is anathema.

[Razard]

The problem is with people like that, they can't understand why different people enjoy different things, hence you get the negative and narrow-minded responses like his. Much as he may protest otherwise, it's clear to me that he is utterly incapable of putting himself in the shoes of others and tries to hide this through the veil of "literally the worst" to try shut it down.

For people who just want RPGs to be feel-good hugboxes and utilise the euphemism of "heroic fantasy" to describe this (as if these don't have their own darker elements), of course anything veering off that course - which many of us enjoy in other RPGs - is anathema.

Adorable.

Or it would go against the established tone of the setting and themes. No matter what you or Mr."Garleans did nothing wrong" think.

Just a thought dearie

[EmmetOtter]

“Hey guys. Can you guys put in dialogue choices so I can rp as literally the worst D&D/Role playing game stereotype?”

How about no.

But its OK to RP literally the worst story telling character trope? You know, that perfect, never does anything wrong, always succeeds, every NPC gushes over how awesome he/she is Mary Sue character? There's no growth. No suspense. It's boring. That's your character. My character. Everyone's character.

So yes, RPing an individual who is flawed is way more interesting and believable. You should be so lucky as to role play a "Murder Hobo". Its leagues ahead of anything we have now.

[TheMightyMollusk]

But its OK to RP literally the worst story telling character trope? You know, that perfect, never does anything wrong, always succeeds, every NPC gushes over how awesome he/she is Mary Sue character? There's no growth. No suspense. It's boring. That's your character. My character. Everyone's character.

I mean, if you ignore all the times the WoL does fail (the bloody banquet in Ul'dah, Haurchefant's death, jobbing to Zenos twice and later to Ran'jit, among others), or does do something wrong (recruiting known traitor Laurentius into the Crystal Braves, keeping the poison vial that gets used as evidence in the aformentioned bloody banquet, attacking Zenos in Doma when secrecy was our entire reason to be there in the first place, etc). The dark knight story is literally about how our character has PTSD from all the horrible crap they go through all the time. And those signs of trauma don't just magically disappear when the scene ends; check the scene where we have dinner at Aymeric's mansion. Even in as safe a place as can be, the WoL is still leery of someone pouring a drink for them after they got poisoned at the peace conference.

So yes, RPing an individual who is flawed is way more interesting and believable. You should be so lucky as to role play a "Murder Hobo". Its leagues ahead of anything we have now.

The question is how "flawed" do we get before it becomes just as unbelievable the other way. Murderhobos are, if anything, even less believable than a good hero, because there's no reason at all that someone else wouldn't kick our face in for it. Either the combined forces of good would put us down like a mad dog, or we'd crush them all and swing completely into Mary Sue territory.

[Iscah]

...or does do something wrong (recruiting known traitor Laurentius into the Crystal Braves...)

That was a terrible outcome, yes, but our mistake of judgement wasn't with him.

I'm certain he was genuine at that point. Trying to turn over a new leaf. And what do we do? Invite him into the worst kind of company that twists his weak-willed self right back into villainy.

And then there was Wilred...