There are a bunch of ways they could fix the break; turning the conversations slightly differently would be all it would take, or they could indeed use the tadpole to single out the player character (origin or otherwise) as having some sort of extra nudge that inclines them to need to be the decision-maker for the party. More conversations between other characters, with the opportunity for the player character to mediate might also be a good move, and be another way in which we are conveyed as the decision-maker. With the characters defined as they are, there needs to be something to counterbalance it to make their deferring to the player character make narrative sense, or at least to have a narrative excuse until a bigger, more direct reason reveals itself.

In NWN2, the reason you lead the group is because the element of the plot that ties to you is unique to you, and it's a little bit more pressing than the objectives and needs your companions have, and you don't have the option of ignoring it - it's not relevant or related to your personal character backstory, apart from the predefined elements of it. Before that comes up, however, in the intro stages of the game, you're still the player character party leader, without everyone being aware of this bigger plot point. The game still justifies you leading, until the major reveal, with some dialogue that sets up the idea that, for whatever reason (that you're free to define), your character has sort of always been the instigator or leader in your small band of friends. It's a small extra couple of lines that ties that up in a believable way, and it's not hard for games to do, if they care. It's smoothed further by having early companions that have personalities that are supportive and friendly, and who want to help you with what you need to do - the more headstrong and difficult characters show up later, when the importance of what you're doing is enough to outweigh their independent characters without drowning them.

==

(for Robert)


Originally Posted by robertthebard
You mean "some" other games? I gave you a list earlier, am I wasting just as much of my time typing this as I did that?

No, I mean what I said - 'most' do, and the ones that don't are poorly delivered and shouldn't be held up as examples to justify further poor writing from other games.

Generally speaking, when a post does not contain anything worth acknowledging or responding to, I don't acknowledge or respond to it; nothing you posted in the previous post was worth addressing or responding to, and the games you mentioned had already been examined and discredited as not serving your argument by others by the time I read the thread - so there was no value in responding or repeating what others had said.

To that end: "These other two games I can mention also do this bad thing, so that's why it's okay for this game to also do that bad thing, even when I acknowledge that other games do not do the bad thing, and it is not necessary to do the bad thing" is not a very worthwhile contention, so of course I'm not going to give it the time of day to respond to. You lose nothing if this is improved, so why are you arguing against folk who would like it improved?

You come across as extremely fractious, especially in your last post (the short, exclamatory rhetorical questions add to this impression); why are you writing with such agitated tone, trying to argue that it's okay for the game to do something badly, because other games do it badly too - why is that important to you? Why do you feel the need to resort to ridiculous hyperbole and straw-manning in your responses? Your entire last paragraph is an obvious farce - you know that no-one is suggesting that (at least I assume in good faith that you do), and you're going out of your way to ignore what has been suggested in order to ridicule the opinion you're fighting against. It makes you look intellectually dishonest at minimum, and it doesn't help you get your opinion across; if anything it makes folks less inclined to give your words fair treatment. You do not come across, to me, as though you are posting in good faith - just as though you want to argue or to condescend and act superior to others. This is the impression I get from your writing.