genn and rastakhan spoilers

Story Forum
Prev 1 4 5 6 Next
10/17/2018 04:26 PMPosted by Kelrexia
Goodie gumdrops. I'm simply all a-flutter with anticipation for the arguments over which line is canon.
It should be fairly obvious which one is canon.

They've already said that battles are played from one faction's perspective, then, when the other side plays it they're "receiving reports" about what happened.

So whichever side is playing through the "reports" instead of actually being there is clearly the one that's not canon.
*Sighs* Someone call the vet, we really gotta neuter this mutt once and for all.
I'll wait for actual verification. But if it is true that Blizz intentionally changes the dialogue depending on who's participating, then it's hilariously terrible. Like, I'm actually struggling to comprehend how terrible that is.

This is their answer to painting the Alliance as antagonists? Giving us false dialogue and impromptu Purge squads? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Obviously, both dialogues can't be true at the same time. And if one side happens in real time and the other is portrayed as a "Here's what happened" then it's clear which one must be canon.

SO. WHY. DO. THIS?
10/19/2018 06:12 AMPosted by Hackbrew
I'll wait for actual verification.
That's where I am as well. I'm hoping it's not 2 versions to try to mess with customers. I'm actually hoping the "BOW SLAVE! AND GIVE US YOUR WOMEN!" is the real version though. :D
10/19/2018 06:12 AMPosted by Hackbrew
I'll wait for actual verification. But if it is true that Blizz intentionally changes the dialogue depending on who's participating, then it's hilariously terrible. Like, I'm actually struggling to comprehend how terrible that is.

This is their answer to painting the Alliance as antagonists? Giving us false dialogue and impromptu Purge squads? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Obviously, both dialogues can't be true at the same time. And if one side happens in real time and the other is portrayed as a "Here's what happened" then it's clear which one must be canon.

SO. WHY. DO. THIS?


Because its a classic writing tool in games? Second hand account vs First hand accounts. The Horde isn't there in person, so they don't have access to the event as it unfolds. So ... they're dependent on eyewitness testimony, which is often flawed and biased (especially if its from a Zandalari that just witnessed their king being killed by the Alliance). When telling a story from two sides its pretty common.

Bluntly, I don't mind this style of writing in a game ... it plays on "Character Knowledge" over "Player Knowledge", which is very classic DnD. What would your character know vs what YOU know? The irony is that this directly contrasts heavily with the biggest problem in the Saurfang questline, where the CHARACTER does not really have a reason to become a traitor yet in that scenario.

One could say these "Purge Squads" are an extension of that methodology. They could be just what the Horde refers to them as. They have no dialogue (this could be just the PTR), they're burning the carts, they're attacking Vulpera (but I don't see any dead ... however there are plenty in shackles). If this is the case, its fine. Its dark ... but these Alliance forces are just neutralizing what they see as a Horde supply caravan...

The issue is consistency. IF you want your players to rely on "Character Knowledge" over "Player Knowledge" you HAVE TO make sure that its ALWAYS that way. You can't have players acting on "Player Knowledge" when it comes to the Saurfang choice (which IS what it relies on) and then have them ignore that same player knowledge when it comes to the Zuldazar raid and this Vulpera World Quest. PICK! ONE! BLIZZ!
It's kinda bizarre that people think this matters.

Genn is standing at the head of an invading army and requesting surrender. Why does it matter if he's nice about it or not?
10/19/2018 06:12 AMPosted by Hackbrew
I'll wait for actual verification. But if it is true that Blizz intentionally changes the dialogue depending on who's participating, then it's hilariously terrible. Like, I'm actually struggling to comprehend how terrible that is.

This is their answer to painting the Alliance as antagonists? Giving us false dialogue and impromptu Purge squads? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Obviously, both dialogues can't be true at the same time. And if one side happens in real time and the other is portrayed as a "Here's what happened" then it's clear which one must be canon.

SO. WHY. DO. THIS?


Because its a classic writing tool in games? Second hand account vs First hand accounts. The Horde isn't there in person, so they don't have access to the event as it unfolds. So ... they're dependent on eyewitness testimony, which is often flawed and biased (especially if its from a Zandalari that just witness their king being killed by the Alliance). When telling a story from two sides its pretty common.

Bluntly, I don't mind this style of writing in a game ... it plays on "Character Knowledge" over "Player Knowledge", which is very classic DnD. What would your character know vs what YOU know? The irony is that this directly contrasts heavily with the biggest problem in the Saurfang questline, where the CHARACTER does not really have a reason to become a traitor yet in that scenario.

One could say these "Purge Squads" are an extension of that methodology. They could be just what the Horde refers to them as. They have no dialogue (this could be just the PTR), they're burning the carts, they're attacking Vulpera (but I don't see any dead ... however there are plenty in shackles). If this is the case, its fine, its dark ... but these Alliance forces are just neutralizing what they see as a Horde supply caravan...

This issue is consistency. IF you want your players to rely on "Character Knowledge" over "Player Knowledge" you HAVE TO make sure that its ALWAYS that way. You can't have players acting on "Player Knowledge" when it comes to the Saurfang choice (which IS what it relies on) and then have them ignore that same player knowledge when it comes to the Zuldazar raid and this Vulpera World Quest. PICK ONE BLIZZ!


I do understand where you're coming from, but being lied to is a HUGE berserk button for me (which is why Wait and See now makes me twitch involuntarily)

Every other time they've done unreliable narrator like this, it's either an NPC actively trying to deceive us (in which case it's often pretty obvious, as a wink to the player- think Drakuru), or there's information missing (like Broken Shore).

Doing it this way, with outright lies, is just insulting. They give the Horde a cartoonishly sneering imperialist of a Greymane via a "witness" who lies to our faces when the Alliance witness, in person, a downright polite, if audacious, performance.

Split the difference. Have the scout tell the truth, and go with a brusque, but believable "Rastakhan of Zandalar, in the name of King Anduin Wrynn, I demand your surrender to the Alliance, and your daughter as a hostage for your good behavior."

If you need to appease the white knights, maybe let the Alliance, who are right next to Greymane, hear him start to assure Papakhan, as a father, that Talanji will not be mistreated, but the Horde scout misses it over an enraged Rastakhan shouting him down.

Give us something honest to be mad about- he barges into our ally's city, raids their treasury, and has the gall to demand that the leader of the oldest surviving civilization on the planet surrender in the heart of his own territory. The truth is enough, especially if you don't make the legendarily blunt and coarse Genn Greymane suddenly be uncharacteristically polite and civil.
Just when I was starting to dislike Genn less, he says the cringiest thing ever to the person LEAST likely to do any of the things he's hollering about, despite their position.

"BOW BEFORE THIS HUMAN BABY, TROLL KING WITH GIANT GOLD HAT!"

...and GIVE US YOUR ONLY DAUGHTER!"

Why has everyone become a nonsensical idiot this patch? Asking Rastakhan to bow to Anduin in laughable.

I'd be more satisfied if every piece of dialogue was just replaced with 'AAAAAAHHH'

Honestly, it'd be less embarrassing.
10/19/2018 08:14 AMPosted by Gavik
It's kinda bizarre that people think this matters.

Genn is standing at the head of an invading army and requesting surrender. Why does it matter if he's nice about it or not?


Because one is downright civil, almost regretful-sounding, and the other is custom tailored to be as humiliating as possible.

We KNOW the Zandalari are proud. Like, elf-proud. Even with the physical and mystical muscle to back it up, they can rightly be called arrogant.

Alliance leaders are aware of this.

It's not just a matter of "was he polite;" it's a matter of "did he actually want this to end peacefully, or was he just looking for an excuse?".

As players, we know that the writers wanted Rastakhan dead from the start. To the characters, however, the intent makes a significant difference. The fact is that both recordings are out of character for Genn, albeit for different reasons.
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Launi
Just when I was starting to dislike Genn less, he says the cringiest thing ever to the person LEAST likely to do any of the things he's hollering about, despite their position.

"BOW BEFORE THIS HUMAN BABY, TROLL KING WITH GIANT GOLD HAT!"

...and GIVE US YOUR ONLY DAUGHTER!"

Why has everyone become a nonsensical idiot this patch? Asking Rastakhan to bow to Anduin in laughable.

I'd be more satisfied if every piece of dialogue was just replaced with 'AAAAAAHHH'

Honestly, it'd be less embarrassing.


If it's any comfort, it's very likely that the other one is canon, and that this one is just our SCOUT, the guy whose JOB is to give us ACCURATE INFORMATION, LYING TO OUR FACES.
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Kirango
I do understand where you're coming from, but being lied to is a HUGE berserk button for me (which is why Wait and See now makes me twitch involuntarily)

Every other time they've done unreliable narrator like this, it's either an NPC actively trying to deceive us (in which case it's often pretty obvious, as a wink to the player- think Drakuru), or there's information missing (like Broken Shore).

Doing it this way, with outright lies, is just insulting. They give the Horde a cartoonishly sneering imperialist of a Greymane via a "witness" who lies to our faces when the Alliance witness, in person, a downright polite, if audacious, performance.

Split the difference. Have the scout tell the truth, and go with a brusque, but believable "Rastakhan of Zandalar, in the name of King Anduin Wrynn, I demand your surrender to the Alliance, and your daughter as a hostage for your good behavior."

If you need to appease the white knights, maybe let the Alliance, who are right next to Greymane, hear him start to assure Papakhan, as a father, that Talanji will not be mistreated, but the Horde scout misses it over an enraged Rastakhan shouting him down.

Give us something honest to be mad about- he barges into our ally's city, raids their treasury, and has the gall to demand that the leader of the oldest surviving civilization on the planet surrender in the heart of his own territory. The truth is enough, especially if you don't make the legendarily blunt and coarse Genn Greymane suddenly be uncharacteristically polite and civil.


OK ... then you're not likely the type to enjoy playing D&D then,. Especially not if your DM is worth a damned and not only WILL misdirect you with faulty information (either a genuine lie, or a unreliable or biased source NPCs) and they will absolutely crush you into the dust for using "Meta-Knowledge" (player knowledge that your character would not have). And ... I'm not going to lie, this writing style is not for everyone, but its not inherently bad if the execution is consistent (in that players are always expected to work off of Character Knowledge in game).

Its part of the "RP" element of an "RPG" ... and if this is the route Blizz has decided to go with "BfA" it would actually make a lot of their writing decisions make more sense. Since you cannot have "internal dialogue" within a game like WoW, you would instead rely upon "Character Knowledge" to tell two sides to the same story. Honestly, while 8.1 is riddled with problems ... they could solve a lot of it by altering the Saurfang storyline so the player doesn't have the option to interfere with Saurfang vs Lyana. They don't have enough "Character Knowledge" to act, so they shouldn't.

Its not for everyone, but its not bad ... if pursued correctly. Also, it should be noted that we actually don't know if we're receiving this information from a "Scout" ... or just an "Eyewitness". The prior is expected to be accurate, the later ... not so much.
10/19/2018 08:39 AMPosted by Kirango
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Launi
Just when I was starting to dislike Genn less, he says the cringiest thing ever to the person LEAST likely to do any of the things he's hollering about, despite their position.

"BOW BEFORE THIS HUMAN BABY, TROLL KING WITH GIANT GOLD HAT!"

...and GIVE US YOUR ONLY DAUGHTER!"

Why has everyone become a nonsensical idiot this patch? Asking Rastakhan to bow to Anduin in laughable.

I'd be more satisfied if every piece of dialogue was just replaced with 'AAAAAAHHH'

Honestly, it'd be less embarrassing.


If it's any comfort, it's very likely that the other one is canon, and that this one is just our SCOUT, the guy whose JOB is to give us ACCURATE INFORMATION, LYING TO OUR FACES.
sounds like you need new scouts
10/19/2018 08:38 AMPosted by Kirango
10/19/2018 08:14 AMPosted by Gavik
It's kinda bizarre that people think this matters.

Genn is standing at the head of an invading army and requesting surrender. Why does it matter if he's nice about it or not?


Because one is downright civil, almost regretful-sounding, and the other is custom tailored to be as humiliating as possible.

We KNOW the Zandalari are proud. Like, elf-proud. Even with the physical and mystical muscle to back it up, they can rightly be called arrogant.

Alliance leaders are aware of this.

It's not just a matter of "was he polite;" it's a matter of "did he actually want this to end peacefully, or was he just looking for an excuse?".

As players, we know that the writers wanted Rastakhan dead from the start. To the characters, however, the intent makes a significant difference. The fact is that both recordings are out of character for Genn, albeit for different reasons.


Fair enough! Thanks.
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Launi
Just when I was starting to dislike Genn less, he says the cringiest thing ever to the person LEAST likely to do any of the things he's hollering about, despite their position.

"BOW BEFORE THIS HUMAN BABY, TROLL KING WITH GIANT GOLD HAT!"

...and GIVE US YOUR ONLY DAUGHTER!"

Why has everyone become a nonsensical idiot this patch? Asking Rastakhan to bow to Anduin in laughable.

I'd be more satisfied if every piece of dialogue was just replaced with 'AAAAAAHHH'

Honestly, it'd be less embarrassing.


Yeah, that sounds like its the Horde scout's version and not the canon version of what happens.
10/19/2018 08:53 AMPosted by Droité
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Kirango
I do understand where you're coming from, but being lied to is a HUGE berserk button for me (which is why Wait and See now makes me twitch involuntarily)

Every other time they've done unreliable narrator like this, it's either an NPC actively trying to deceive us (in which case it's often pretty obvious, as a wink to the player- think Drakuru), or there's information missing (like Broken Shore).

Doing it this way, with outright lies, is just insulting. They give the Horde a cartoonishly sneering imperialist of a Greymane via a "witness" who lies to our faces when the Alliance witness, in person, a downright polite, if audacious, performance.

Split the difference. Have the scout tell the truth, and go with a brusque, but believable "Rastakhan of Zandalar, in the name of King Anduin Wrynn, I demand your surrender to the Alliance, and your daughter as a hostage for your good behavior."

If you need to appease the white knights, maybe let the Alliance, who are right next to Greymane, hear him start to assure Papakhan, as a father, that Talanji will not be mistreated, but the Horde scout misses it over an enraged Rastakhan shouting him down.

Give us something honest to be mad about- he barges into our ally's city, raids their treasury, and has the gall to demand that the leader of the oldest surviving civilization on the planet surrender in the heart of his own territory. The truth is enough, especially if you don't make the legendarily blunt and coarse Genn Greymane suddenly be uncharacteristically polite and civil.


OK ... then you're not likely the type to enjoy playing D&D then,. Especially not if your DM is worth a damned and not only WILL misdirect you with faulty information (either a genuine lie, or a unreliable or biased source NPCs) and they will absolutely crush you into the dust for using "Meta-Knowledge" (player knowledge that your character would not have). And ... I'm not going to lie, this writing style is not for everyone, but its not inherently bad if the execution is consistent (in that players are always expected to work off of Character Knowledge in game).

Its part of the "RP" element of an "RPG" ... and if this is the route Blizz has decided to go with "BfA" it would actually make a lot of their writing decisions make more sense. Since you cannot have "internal dialogue" within a game like WoW, you would instead rely upon "Character Knowledge" to tell two sides to the same story. Honestly, while 8.1 is riddled with problems ... they could solve a lot of it by altering the Saurfang storyline so the player doesn't have the option to interfere with Saurfang vs Lyana. They don't have enough "Character Knowledge" to act, so they shouldn't.

Its not for everyone, but its not bad ... if pursued correctly. Also, it should be noted that we actually don't know if we're receiving this information from a "Scout" ... or just an "Eyewitness". The prior is expected to be accurate, the later ... not so much.


I love D&D, and when playing it, I don't use meta knowledge(beyond the point of suggesting alternative ways to mechanically approach a situation, which 5e is generally quite supportive of). Our table actually has enough trust that we roll our own perception and sense motive checks, and roleplay according to the results. Presenting it via cutscene muddies the water- it blurs the line between character and player knowledge, because our characters are getting the whole thing as a verbal report, but we as players are witnessing and experiencing it directly, and our brains are wired to trust that kind of account more. Specifically, it blurs the question from "can we trust this NPC" to "can we trust what we ourselves see and hear." Now, if we have the scout's VO's overlaid(Jade Forest Flashback style), it reinforces that we're experiencing a narrative within a narrative, with the tellers' biases presented as such, and that would go a long way to address that issue... at the possible expense of making the whole thing come off kinda silly. It would have been better to just have the scout do his job.

See my examples of our characters being deceived in-game: that wink to the player is an acknowledgment that, essentially, our character failed a Sense Motive check and is being manipulated. Think the Stormheim goblins, for another example. The NPC lies to us, and we as players are at least suspicious, but the truth comes out through the narrative of the questline.

This goes deeper than that. The ONLY narrative that the Horde player gets, without going to Youtube, is not only incomplete, but factually untrue, and apparently for the purpose of riling us up while keeping the Alliance NPCs' hands clean, and it's insulting to both sides because of it, in addition to being just plain unnecessary.
The problem is that they’re literally creating the alternate Genn that the Horde is supposed to be imagining in their minds and positing that as reality rather than try to lead the player to that conclusion with second-hand accounts.
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Launi
...and GIVE US YOUR ONLY DAUGHTER!"
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Really though this just reeks of Darkshore all over again where the Horde sees only dead combatants where the Alliance saw massacred civilians and such. Lazy writing is lazy, sky is blue, life goes on.
10/19/2018 06:12 AMPosted by Hackbrew

Obviously, both dialogues can't be true at the same time.


Maybe we've been in a dragonbreak since Cata
10/19/2018 08:29 AMPosted by Launi

"BOW BEFORE THIS HUMAN BABY, TROLL KING WITH GIANT GOLD HAT!"

...and GIVE US YOUR ONLY DAUGHTER!"


Ohmigod, why can't this be the actual dialogue? It would be the best thing ever.
I thought the distinction was notable and weird as well...one was formally requesting his surrender from one king to another, the other was basically demanding his daughter as a captive. o_O

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum