I understood fine:
You're missing the point again. Go back, read what I wrote again, and try to obtain it this time. There's no point in me repeating myself when you didn't obtain it (and from your response, did not appear to understand what was said) the first time.
I could say the same ... exactly the same.
You dont make the expression of understanding either, nor even slightest desire to do ... so since you just refuse to comunicate futher, i gues this is how it ends. :-/
Shame, but hardly surprising. :-/
Again: the story is irrelevant, as are the details of it.
Nope ...
How exactly it even can be irellevant?
If narrator is talking as your character inner voice, its totally relevant, even important, if that character is thinking what is he thinking bcs he thinks it ... or bcs some other being put that idea on his head.
How the hell could this difference be irellevant?
I'm not talking about the story or its details;
I do.
You sure know that one of difference between mologoue and dialogue ... this isnt your lecture, you dont have ultimate truth ... we both have opinion and if we are suppose to talk about them, we both need to listen to the other one. -_-
I'm describing a very clear series of cases which, if met, have a direct conclusion, and this is external to the story and its details. These conditions are met by this game, and so the conclusion follows.
As i said my (supposedly missunderstanding) post ... yes:
IF Narrator is talking as some being, in that specific moment its not a Narator, but that being ... wich is totally story related to the story by the way, so i still cant see how can story be irellevant ...
But if you are suppose to think FOR STORY PURPOSES that the voice you hear in your head is your own, and IF the narrator is used as your inner voice, then that being HAVE TO be presented to you as the Narrator ...
There is no other way, unless you want to rise huge red flag "alert alert, something that is only discuising as your own mind is now talking".
It is obvious from the outset that this voice is not reliable external narration. There is nothing pretending to be otherwise here. The problem is that, at the same time, while it is very obviously being an in-universe entity with motives and opinions, we are *also* being required to simultaneously accept it as our actual narrator, and being required to trust it as a reliable external narrator for many other things. It cannot be both, they are mutually exclusive concepts, but it is being made to act as both, and so it falls apart. This is a problem.
The MOMENT that voice starts describing anything, it's obviously dripping with bias and motive... there is no surprise here, it's not hidden. There is nothing that you are being theoretically 'spoiled' on, because it's very obviously and deliberately made clear from the very beginning. It's just done in a very bad way.
So basicaly you are pissed that you discovered the grand finale reveal before you reached that point?
Funny ... i cant even remember when was the last time i have seen, read, or played anything that would actualy surprise me.
I gues im used to this, so i simply accept what im expected to do ... is this voice called Narrator, bcs im supposed to take it as a Narrator? Well, then i do. :P
Again: It is not the game's place to tell me what my own character is thinking or feeling.
I would agree on the table, when you can lead dialogue with your GM to get exactly the expression he want you to have ...
In PC game tho, you have to describe everything as precise as possible ... this is the easy way, but its definietly effective.
You dont like it i get it, well ... too bad for you i gues. :-/
How would you like to describe any of your feeling or thinking, when they are affected by some magical influence ... while leting player to decide them? O_o
There are a myriad of ways to do this well. Just as any moderately competent DM. Telling players how their own characters feel about something, or what they think about something, is a total, kick them from the table, cardinal sin. You don't do that. You never do that. It's not your right and it's not your place to do that, under any circumstance.
Well i gues you could expect me to drag it again ...
You know the situation with Eodwins Tadpole.
Please describe me that my character feels compassion with the creature without telling me that my character feels compassion.
"You go to climb the ladder, but as you get there, you look around, and you think better of it. You don't really feel like climbing, and you think you'd rather wait down here for now."
"As you go to climb the ladder, you're struck by a sense that you shouldn't. The thought sticks in your mind, at odds with your choice to follow your friends, a moment ago. You don't know where it comes from, but the sense, that you should wait, lingers in the back of your mind."
There is, in fact, a very important difference between those two phrases - sensitivity to the agency of the personal character.
There is, in fact, a very important difference between those two phrases that i see aswell indeed ...
In first sentence the idea to go down and wait seems like my own ... mainly bcs that is what i have ben told.
In second one, it dont seems like it ... especialy thanks to the part "you dont know where it comes from" ... that allone seems to me like indicator of that my character is aware that this idea isnt his own, that it strangely pop up out of nowehere ... that would raise my red flag.
And before you suggest it - no, there's not an element of one of these 'spoiling' a secret, or revealing something that the other keeps hidden; in both cases it's directly obvious to the player that they are being influenced in some way.
Yes im suggesting it, bcs i see it there ...
Just as you see the Narrator "obviously from the outset that this voice is not reliable external narration".
but it's a difference that both Larian, and possibly you as well, Rag (?) - seem to be blind to.
Dunno ... im used to that my DM is telling me what my character MAY think ... so its not so huge issue for me.
Sometimes he is completely off, and my idea is totally different, true ... but in that case we have agreement, its still my character and if i want to play it in some way, i simply do ... and if he is not completely off, well, i see no problem there, since if his description is fitting my character there is no reason for me to refuse it, just bcs it was not from my head ... that smells like being stubborn. :-/
On the other hand tho, i think we allready know that Larian is great storyteller, but horrible DM ...
Or at least *i* get the expression when we (it was you i believe?) were talking about killing childern in this game, and other situations when Larian chase you to the corner and gives you one and only option to get out.
I would never concidering this good DMing ... but i understand its necesary evil for them to keep the game in some line. :-/ Sure, there may be other ways, some more effective, and certainly some more elegant ... but taking it over and over, i gues i can deal with it ... and to be brutally honest, i dont think we get other choice.
