This is a major issue I have with the implementation of dialog skills in modern RPGs. It's everywhere these days - be it a mid-range RPG, an AAA RPG, or an indie RPG. Skill checks in dialog choices are always tagged, so you know which one's the best option to take. My first RPG with extensive C&C and where dialog skills mattered was Arcanum, where some options would only appear for high int chars, and some options only for high persuasion chars. Heck, Arcanum's persuasion master quest had you negotiate an alliance with a foreign county and you had to carefully choose the conditions so the alliance would bring the most benefits to the Unified Kingdom while still being attractive to Caladon. There was also a quest in Ashbury where you had to convince the people to vote for building a monument, and depending on which options you picked (inscription on the monument, size of it, material it's made of) they'd be more or less likely to vote yes. The correct dialog options only appeared if your char had a high enough intelligence. But the wrong options still stayed, and it was up to you to pick the right ones.
Nowadays RPGs tag the "correct" options so you can run through dialogues on autopilot. Just pick the option tagged with your best skill and win.
Yeah I think a lot of the "character skill is more important cause it's an RPG" crowd take it a bit too far.
There needs to be some player skill involved unless you want to turn the game into an autopilot thing. Game = a thing you play. Your input as the player should matter.
Let us also look at the tabletop, where our beloved genre was spawned: in most D&D groups, the DM will ask you to play out a persuasion, seduction or intimidation attempt. You're not just gonna say "I roll intimidate", you're gonna say "My barbarian raises his fists and snarls at the guard, threatening a beating unless he gives up the info." Also, many classic D&D modules contain plenty of traps and tricks that rely on player ingenuity to get around, rather than merely requiring a simple skill check. Traps in most CRPGs boil down to using the disarm trap skill on a booby trapped door or chest, but plenty of pen and paper modules have creative traps that can't be disarmed with a simple skill check but have to be circumvented by stuffing a 10 foot pole into some dank hole while the bard step dances on a field of pressure plates and the wizard throws a very specific spell at a very specific spot, and players figure out what to do by a mix of trial and error, skill checks for their characters, and knowledge of the game mechanics and game world. It's not just a dice roll against character skill. It involves some amount of player skill.
And that only makes sense, since combat also depends on player skill to some extent, otherwise you'd just let the DM roll player stats vs enemy stats until one of them dies. But no, battles are often decided by the tactical ingenuity of players, especially in systems with more complex combat rules: flanking, use of spells and consumables, targeting priority, and in pen and paper games you can even attempt out-of-the-box tactics not intended by the system.
When you decide to charge the enemy wizard with your barbarian, is it the DM who says "Your barbarian charges the enemy wizard because he has high combat skills and therefore understands that taking out the caster has the highest priority"? No, it's you, the player, who decides that targeting the wizard first is a good tactical choice.
Giving all the dialog options their related skill tags so you know which options are the best is like giving you hint popups during combat, like "during this turn, it would be a good idea to throw a net at Carrus, because he's your most dangerous enemy right now and taking away his mobility would be a good move". Everyone would complain about casualization if that were the case, but when it's done with dialogue choices it's ok for some reason.
Last edited:
