Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity Original Sin - Beta Bonuses from conversation traits = Bad

I do like the dialogue options you take having some effect, but it should be limited more to social things. Otherwise I just feel pressured to choose the optimal dialogue line for my build, rather than going through dialogue like a normal person might.

I'm fine with getting reputation based on my dialogue choices, but beyond that it's more nuisance than anything else.

For example, if I choose Pragmatic in the first dialogue, I get +1 crafting, but I'd rather have +1 lucky charm so I choose romantic even if I agree more with the pragmatic dialogue option.

This is even worse in co-op, since sometimes you will miss out on stat bonuses if you're away from a conversation your friend is involved in. These bonuses add up and can significantly benefit a character.

I'd much rather the character stats be more up to player choice, and have dialogue options give you outside benefits like monetary rewards, different side quest options, better reputation with like minded characters, etc. etc.

Isn't that kinda the idea of roleplaying? That you play your characters role? And the stats make you favor your CHARACTERS own traits and views, not YOUR traits and views?

Stop metagaming and try to get immersed in the game.

Except when you build your character and said immersed roleplaying locks you out of your skills... sure you may argue that's part of roleplaying, but how exactly would a dialog choice make my char be worse at an skill? It makes no sense, and actually breaks immersion.

I completely agree with Fellgnome and eRe4s3r on this. Not only do stat increases from conversation options provide an incentive to not freely roleplay to your chosen personality, they simply don't make any sense. (I told someone I don't believe in leaps of faith... so now I know how to make a spear. Whaaaaa?)

A totally nonsensical statement and/or argument. The whole point of RPG's is to make a good character. If you are intentionally missing out on hugely beneficial traits as a result of "being immersed" then its stupid. And I find it breaking the immersion to get something I DON'T want for giving an answer I did want.

The rogue can pickup a + 20% chance to hit on backstab early from vindictive. But that's only if you answer right. Same for the lucky charm example stated above.

I like the idea of this, but it does fail because you will get skill bonuses you don't care about for your specific character.

I can see both sides of this argument, but I think I lean more on the OC's side. I'm less likely to roleplay a character a certain way if it leads to them noticeably underperforming in combat sections, which, as Larian has stated, are supposed to be challenging. It also doesn't really make much sense in practice. If I'm only stating or reaffirming a previously held belief, how does that make me better at *anything*? I may have already held that opinion before but am only now introduced into an environment in which I can articulate or consider it. If I go through life believing that leaps of faith are silly I'm not going to suddenly become more talented in a mostly unrelated field just because I stated that belief out loud.

Why not let the relationships you form be the impact of roleplaying? If the system is functional and in-depth that should be incentive enough to roleplay a certain way.

I disagree completely. Traits are the games reflection of the personality of that character as displayed by your choices in conversation. They are the way the game interprets your -roleplaying- or the character you are trying to portray. Individuals of certain personalities/temperments may have different aptitudes than others and this is reflected in those traits.

The problem you're having is deciding whether you want to roleplay or 'rollplay'/metagame. You need to make a decision. If you want to roleplay than the mild bonuses from the dialogue shouldn't matter...view them as natural aptitudes you didn't fully explore. Not everyone becomes an expert in all the things they are naturally talented at. If you want to metagame then...do so?

Why simplify the possibilities because you lack self-control?

As for the post above: Stop thinking of them as incentives. They aren't incentives unless you're trying to metagame. They're just natural aptitudes of those traits. Presumably your character at development already had these traits...you just didn't reveal them until you decided to have dialogue with people in the game. Once they're revealed the game then -reveals- some of your natural aptitudes. It can serve as a way to direct you towards new paths that you may not have anticipated.

If you aren't planning your character out from the beginning then it wouldn't matter. If you are planning your character from the beginning then you already are metagaming and you should just abuse the system because you're already trying to. This concept of 'half roleplaying/half metagaming' is not conducive to a happy life. You will never be satisfied. What happens when you find out certain quests/dialogue choices could give you something that your specific build needed to be the best at what it does later on? Does that mean it should be available to someone who roleplayed the way you chose to?

There's no possible way that you are 'underperforming' in combat because of small trait bonuses. It's far more likely you built a horrible team or are lacking tactical analysis. Or maybe hard isn't for you.

Hey, Ripper, Alphamonkey. Different people actually play different ways for different reasons.

Just saying.

You're simplifying and making assumptions. I'm saying the dichotomy doesn't need to be there at all. I and everyone here have the self-control to choose between roleplaying and metagaming. What I think we're arguing is that the dichotomy doesn't need to be there in the first place, and only functions to draw a rift between two play styles that can coexist harmoniously.



This isn't an either/or situation. The world isn't divided into people who commit to roleplaying or people who commit to metagaming. There are degrees, and for some people (including, seemingly, half the people who have commented on this thread) somewhat arbitrary stat bonuses have the potential of restricting roleplaying freedom. Expecting people to commit to one or the other is silly/



That remains to be seen, doesn't it? Only a small section of the game is currently available, so I'd argue it's not outside the possibility that these stat bonuses can amount to a huge advantage late game. If they ultimately are inconsequential then I suspect most players won't mind one way or another.

Am I missing something or isn't it always better to be Independent (Willpower bonus all the time) rather than Obedient (conditional Willpower bonus)?

In terms of character build (or game design, really)...that's a non-choice.

Unless maybe the Willpower for Obedient can be greater than +1...?

Actually I expanded the topic of conversation to delve into the motivations of the players making these selfish requests; I didn't simplify it one bit. You want to eliminate an option that adds textured detail to the personalities of the characters. If anything you're fabricating that rift because you won't set aside your mindset: You want to have your cake and eat it too. There doesn't need to be a rift if you simply make a choice to not be concerned about the numerical effects your roleplay has. You simply have to treat it as natural aptitudes your character has that are untrained. There's no dichotomy unless you are convinced that every numerical bonus your character has must be hand selected by you and must be specifically tailored to the strengths/weaknesses you decide for your character. What is more rigid than believing things must be removed because they don't fit your plan?




Roleplaying is really a 100% committment. You pick a character and you try to act as if that character would. If you are sophisticated enough of a thinker to believe that you can metagame without sacrificing your roleplaying committment than the presence of a minor temptation shouldn't be able to sway your judgement; it's simply white noise in the overall character build.


This is also where you have an enormous logical fallacy in your statements. "have the potential of restricting roleplaying freedom." There is no such thing. It's a choice you make to FEEL restricted based on the -existence- of those stat bonuses. It doesn't actually restrict your roleplay because you are not actually penalized for roleplaying the way you want to. It's simply that individuals of specific temperment/personality have different aptitudes. A pragmatic person is more logically inclined while a romantic operates according to the whims of chance. You have complete roleplaying freedom. It's only your mindset that is restricting you: a mental stubbornness to accept that your character you chose might not be as perfect as you wanted. Logically what you really want is for the developer to remove temptation. The only fundamental difference between having the trait bonuses and not is that without them you wouldn't have to think about them? If you were truly interested in roleplay you would enjoy the fact that personalities had hidden later affects on how your character developed; these are called hobbies and talents. If anything they should be more random and everyone should have two different abilities/attributes associated with each personality type chosen from a list of possibilities when each is unlocked. More abstraction is better than less.

All your statements tell me is that you and others cannot resist temptation to follow the way you want to play. It tells me you'll likely reload a result to get a more desired outcome given something unanticipated that doesn't provide you with the outcome you wanted.. You want everything to be exactly as you want it and anything that provides a 'nagging worry of imperfection' you want gone so you don't have to think about it. You are outcome oriented and not process oriented in thinking...which is inherently not what roleplay is about.
You could just make the conscious decision to -not worry about it-.

I speak from experience as someone that has played many of these games in the fashion you're trying to...and learned it's far better to just construct a character -idea- and let the game inform his development.



No they are definitively inconsequential because they are far outstripped by the bonuses that can be acquired on gear or even just eating a high level food + diner talent. If the difference between survival and defeat in a given encounter is affected by 1% overall power differential in your character then as I stated before: You have a flawed tactical understanding of the game.

Your argument is based on a possibility you want to exist so you don't have to worry about it. Anyone with any level of theorycrafting experience in games (You know...the people that actually min-max the shit out of things...like me?) would not be claiming these tiny bonuses are going to make or break a fight. This is how I know you're just having trouble resisting temptation; your arguments are not logically sound and informed from a selfish place.

Temptation is there for a reason. It gives you two options to play. You can sacrifice your interest in roleplay to try and min-max that extra %...or you can play the way you want to and enjoy potential minor benefits that help to further define and contextualize the way that specific character fits within the world. It's a way to add the reality of random unplanned potential into an abstracted RPG experience and I hope there are more unplanned permanent bonuses in the game for specific decisions. That's the true joy of roleplaying: Unexpected strengths/weaknesses as you have new experiences.

Based on this exert and others, I think you're grossly overestimating the vehemence to which I hold this position, which I'll take part responsibility for. I don't really want to "eliminate" anything, merely suggest that this system can do harm if poorly implemented. But if the stat bonuses given are, as you say, ultimately going to be negligible (smaller then, let's say, 5%) then I see no reason why it can't keep on existing as a textural detail. If my being a good thief was contingent on liking jam or some such, I'd be a more steadfast opponent of it.

A few small stat bonuses here and there, though? No worries.

I'm not saying it should be removed either. Half of me likes the system, the other half finds it annoying as the only way to gain the traits. I enjoy roleplaying my character, but keep in mind this is a FREEFORM class system. Or classless system. You have no character roleplaying/behavior/alignment other than what you decide to do at any given time. (and this could be opposite if you aren't keeping track.) NWN this is not.

In the end I'm saying I like the idea, but have some problems with the execution. Of course none of the traits are going to make you win or lose the game. But they are very useful or completely useless depending. And that kind of arbitrary-ness is what I dislike.

welcome to role playing. RP is not about min-max-ing. its about playing a role. and a role (its portray) might be not be perfect. if you missed out something b/c of your role played not-perfectness play the game again portraying another role.



and here is your mistake. classless is not role playing is not min-max-ing. those 3 terms are not directly related to each other.
classless does give you the opportunity to shape your character as you like, but it does not necessarily prevent your character from the consequences of a certain behaviour or choice.

only thing you can complain about is that Larian kind of hard coded the consequences of a certain behaviour (like always getting +1 for a trait X b/c you chose dialog option 2 in a certain dialog). But that is a never ending story because there will always be those who do not agree that a certain behaviour yields a certain outcome.

This is something said in one of the press showings few months ago. That there is so many conversation options that even if you start minmaxing it eventually you would just fall into making choices naturally (I read this as: without a guide on your lap it will be impossible to consistently make the optimal choices, and this is their intention).

So basically, they know that it is hard to game the system and they are happy about it. Remember that it is not just stats changes that social options impact but also the solutions available in quests. So really, by trying to minmax one aspect of the system you might cheat yourself out of other social interactions on the paths that you did not choose, or even whole quests in some cases.

I'm not a fan of the way this particular system is designed. While I like the concept of behavior choices fleshing out our characters in real ways, I dislike that it's placing players in a position where they feel like they have to make a choice between role-playing or building a stronger character.

When it comes down to it, choosing one text option over another can save a player up to 5 ability points. That's a pretty big deal. I think my biggest problem with it at this point is that impact of choices don't seem to have a pay off on their own. For example, I can have character A wax romantic about someone jumping off a cliff while character B remains pragmatic instead - in the end what does their conflicting opinions on the subject really amount to, save for the ability point bonus?

It doesn't help that the system can be gamed. For example, when deciding what to do about Ishamashell the clam, you can intentionally have character A argue to sell him while character B argues to return him to the sea. In the end you can intentionally create this conflict but have character A eventually concede to character B and the party is rewarded with a treasure chest. Meanwhile, your intentional disagreement has gotten character A a bonus to bartering and character B a bonus to NPC reactions. Everybody wins. It's not like Ishamashell rewards character B and penalizes character A.

I just wish something different was in place here.

I have to say I agree with most of what you are saying, with the Ishmashell example, indeed no-one will loose. The only real way to play around that is to have two effects on each option so that there is always both a negative and positive effect (think know-it-all talent).

Besides that I am unsure how they could change it without loosing the impact the social interaction has right now. If the negatives are too strong also, there is a possibility of people intentionally avoiding co-operative dialogues, which is not what they want either.

It has been implied that frequent disagreements/bickering will affect the way the characters' relationship plays out in the long run, so this sort of gaming of the system may not be as consequence free as it seems in the beta.

I actually like the fact that the characters' personalities have an impact on their skill development, and it isn't the only game recently to work with that idea. It's true that sometimes the connection between the personality trait and the associated benefit may not be immediately obvious, but but it seems to be more about correlations than direct effects. (Being pragmatic doesn't intrinsically make you better at crafting, but a pragmatic person is more likely to be one who follows the Red Green motto than a romantic person would be, etc.)

I think the system would have been both more true to the "roleplaying" aspect of an RPG and less nonsensical if - as others have mentioned - these dialogue choices affected player reputation and relationships/interactions with NPCs in a deeper way, rather than award stat/ability bonuses. The current system just feels oddly tacked on to the stat mechanics in a way that takes control over player development away from the player - unless the player is willing to sometimes not freely roleplay the way they would otherwise choose. (And this has nothing to do necessarily with "min-maxing" - I'm talking about very basic character development, especially considering how significant a single ability point is in this game.) Anyway, agree to disagree on the current system overall being a good thing.