Having the game react more to a non-tadpole run. I personally mentioned something as simple as having a background counter so that the Emperor is more and more antagonistic throughout the game if you continue to reject his advice as an example of what could be done, instead of the current situation where he just memory holes losing his temper or being accused of being shady from cutscene to cutscene.
Is that specific enough?
You want him to get more and more upset with the character? That's the suggestion? I can't say I like the idea or find it interesting for a mind flayer that's actively trying to manipulate the party, but okay, it's an idea.
I also notice the language used above is asking for *more* reactivity from the game in regards to a non-tadpole run. Meaning you accept that there is, in fact, reactivity. Just not the reactivity you're looking for. This is fair. We all have our complaints. You find me disagreeable because I'm expressive about not being on board with yours.
Because that's the actual topic of the thread. Having options recognized by the game.
It is recognized by the game. If you use the tadpoles, the game recognizes that you used the tadpoles and gives you tadpole powers. If you don't use the tadpoles, the game recognizes that by not giving you the tadpole powers.
All of that aside, my biggest concern is that all of the suggestions I'm hearing in this thread would make the game worse, not better. The Emperor is like Crusher if you don't listen to him. He gets MAD! Or you get special powers or resistances for not eating the cake. Or a special ending undermines everything else for the not-quite-pure players who only have the one tadpole.
It's the equivalent of 'BG3 has a difficulty for advanced players, just don't use X, Y Z and run solo.' No. That's not a difficulty provided by the game. The OP not wanting to use tadpoles because their concept of their character wouldn't and not being able to roleplay that choice is not a 'built in consequence' the game supports. That is a deficiency. Because the actual consequence posited by the game is very unhealthy for the brain with a side of possible soul destruction. D&D 5e lore is not flattering to the consequence of ceremorphosis either.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's clearly a consequence.
The plot presents a temptation. Do you take the temptation? The game *NEVER* says what the consequence of consuming additional tadpoles will be. The Emperor urges you to do this, but the game *NEVER* insists that you can trust the Emperor. In fact, part of the decision is focused around not knowing the potential consequences. Some of the companions wait to see if anything bad happens to the main character before they agree to consume tadpoles.
As for it being unhealthy for the brain... mind flayers are known for being super geniuses. So if you stick something in my head and it gives me super powers and runs the risk of turning me into a super genius, it's weird to start saying it's "unhealthy" for my brain. The only reason this is even mentioned is because of a picture in a UI interface--which is entirely meta for the player's sake--that gets interpreted as bad. The additional tadpoles aren't actually being inserted into the eye. The essence of the tadpole is being absorbed by the one physical tadpole already in the character's head.
Again, I say; I don't think there are consequences to using tadpoles. I don't want to use them because logically there should be consequences to using tadpoles. I'm told this by both the lore of the setting and the game itself. Nothing to do with sacrificing any identity of anything. If the game says 'you feel yourself losing something you will never get back' and literally nothing happens? That has nothing to do with liking the plot or not.
To start, there are clearly consequences. Just not the consequences you're looking for or approve of.
But setting that point aside: why should there be a consequence, exactly?
You feel yourself losing something you'll never get back? Sure, you're evolving, changing, getting super powers. You're the one who wants to interpret that as something... I don't know even know. Heck, your suggestion was to have the Emperor get more mad at you. Is that what you're losing? You'll never get the kindness of the Emperor back? See what I'm saying? None of what you're saying makes sense or adds up or stays consistent. It's just that baked in desire to be rewarded for being special and resisting temptation. You even insist that using tadpoles should have "consequences," because... because! The game says so! Except it doesn't say so. It's just what you want. It's just your vision of right and wrong. Which is fair, to present what you'd like to see in the game. What's not fair is pretending that you're offering some objective truth the rest of us, including the developers, are too dumb to see. Is it even remotely possible that you're the one who doesn't get it?
Anyway, the setting explains that the tadpole is in stasis. If it comes out of stasis, you will turn into a mind flayer. Check. So the setting didn't tell you anything about what consequences there should be.
If not, perhaps insisting on a certain interpretation of what the 'vision' of the story is comes across as problematic.
Oh my goodness. Problematic. Talk about a conversational red flag.
I've made my position abundantly clear. I don't think what you're saying is consistent or makes sense. I understand that you would prefer a different experience in your search for fun. Unfortunately, I can't support your suggestions because I think they would make the game undeniably worse.
I do, however, recognize that there's almost always room for improvement. As such, I'm certainly open to hear any better ideas. There are only two questions:
1. Why should there be consequences, and
2. What exactly should those consequences be?
Keeping in mind that any consequences should actually be well thought out and make sense in the story.
