Conversation Options and Protagonist's Personality

[Hümmelgümpf]

One thing I always wanted to see improved in dialogue trees are conversation options you get. Even in best RPGs what you can say depends on your skills and attributes only. This means you can roleplay a thief/merc/knight/[Profession Name]/whatever. A craftsman. But all craftsmen are different. Let's take a mercenary, for example. As far as I know, in AoD he will get intimidation lines in conversations. How about writing several intimidation lines to choose from? It would be nice to be able to:

1. Humble your opponents.
2. Say something EXTREME.
3. Say nothing. You're a quiet guy nobody wants to mess with.

What do you think, folks? Is there a need of several lines that do basically the same thing, but allow you to further customize your character's personality?

 

[Rulion]

Not really. It all comes to the same in the end. Besides, I can't imagine how long writing all that would take. An unreasonable amount of time, I'm sure. The actions you take in the game should be enough to flesh out your char's personality.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are talking about role-playing personality, which is what Bioware usually does, vs role-playing your "skillset", which is what we are focusing on.

 

[galsiah]

I certainly don't think it should be a priority. Since it'd (presumably) have no gameplay consequences, it'd just be for flavour. That's all very well, but not something I think deserves much time.
Also, if it were entirely immaterial which line was picked, the player might start to pick up on this and assume that many other options were essentially fakes. That's probably not good.

If more intimidation lines were available, I'd prefer that they have slightly different effects / odds / risks. Probably not just high-risk+high-reward vs low-risk+low-reward (might lead to more save+reloading [yes, the player's fault, but that's irrelevant]). Preferably lines that granted different results.

For example, it'd be reasonable to have such choices contribute to faction reputations, general reputations, traits, and other similar variables - which could then be used as deciding factors later. It'd still be a lot of writing for a pretty small gain though.

 

[Jasede]

Yeah. I like the latter better because I grew up with classic Ye Older RPGs. If you really want to you can always "Roleplay" your character in your head, as the ESFites do. Why not, just don't tell anyone.

(Personally, I see no need for multiple lines that do the same. Unless there's some sort of effect on it on the gameworld, but that would be so excruiatingly (I know I spelled that wrong but Opera has no spellcheck, die in a fire) complex to write that you'd best stick that sort of roleplaying into the realm of P&P. Unless you're satisfied with just a different line of written reaction and maybe some tiny consequence, which wouldn't be toooo much work.)

Clarification: I mean like this:

NPC: So, do you agree, you whimsically welpish wimp?

PC:
1. Annuo!
2. Arrr!
3. Aye aye!

NPC reaction to...
1. Or, you speak that stupid language? Well, vasa vacua... heh, you know the rest. Get to it! [+5 rep with the scholars]
2. A pirate, eh? Well, we do have pirates in town... but the "other" kind. Just stay away from the "Busty Bottom". And now get to work! [+5 rep with the freelancers]
3. That's my boy! Now get to work. (+, if CHA > 7) But before that, since you're so obedient, please come into my backroom... you may leave your armor in here... Hurr, hurr! [+50 rep with the NPC, make a fortitude check to avoid STD, unable to sit for 24 hours]

 

[John Yossarian]

Damn, still using Opera Jasede? That's some brand loyalty right there.

I'd say improving or adding dialogue that does have consequences ( I know this is a big point of AoD, but I still doubt all of the less common builds are as well supported with dialogue as the rest) is of greater importance.

 

[merry andrew]

It might be neat to be able to set your character's disposition at creation (sort of like alignment) that could influence the tone of your dialogue... you know, if you want to write that much dialogue when the only consequence is a greater appeal to LARPers.

 

[Ismaul]

I'm very fond of the idea of role-palying personnality instead of skillset, but the whole gameplay of the game would have to change. The only way that would work would be to repalce skills with personnality aspects (otherwise the devs will drown under the number of options to implement). Obviously we would want the different dialogue options expressing different personailities to have consequences in the game, so the game and NPCs would react to different personnality aspects. You'd have evolution/definition of the character by simply choosing certain personnality aspects often, a system somewhat similar to improving skills with usage.

The more I think about it, the more I think that's how it should be done. Personnality role-palying: that's a revolution of cRPGs right there. Most likely never gonna happen.

 

[PseudoIntellectual Snob]

You are talking about role-playing personality, which is what Bioware usually does, vs role-playing your "skillset", which is what we are focusing on.

Bioware doesn't do anything remotely related to roleplaying a personality, as the "roleplayed personality" doesn't have any kind of consequences inside the story/game. I would call it "roleplaying alignement," and that would be a stretch.

Now, a point is that interaction is considered the big selling point of RPGs, "c" or not "c." Interacting with well developed and deep characters and the world they inhabit, more so. In real life, social interaction is much less dependant on "skill set" and much more in the emergent system of personality and ideals, and also is so the result that such interactions have on the enviroment and the context.

Roleplaying is also considered to become the character, and think not as you (and be not you) but him, or her, in those interactions. Individual "skills" are the tools of personalities and ideas, and thus the character becomes, the importance given to skills instead of personalities and ideas, a tool. Of whom? The player.

So, in fact, the character is not the center of the story, and who he is, and why do he does what he does, and what are his, or her, motivations are not where the focus is, while those are the point where it should be. He is the Homo Faber, a man that makes and do, but he is not a being. He has not depth and, therefore, who he is does not have any repercusions in the game world and the story - Those implications, if any, are left to the player to imagine, or not. Isn't that, in fact, LARPing?

It is true that no work can be created without action and skill, but also no action without ideals and personality, it's passions and it's desires. So, it is the Homo Sapiens who creates, as no work can exist in the world without first existing in the mind, and no work can exist in the mind by means other than personality and ideals.

Ergo, the posture you are now defending is, in itself, contrary to roleplaying and to the supossed ideals of the Codex. Here, where everyone talks about depth, is the superficial being defended? Here, where everyone talks about choices and consequences, do we forget that the consequences that each day affects our lives are not in itself a product of our actions, but of the personality and ideals behind those? Actions are nothing but the consequence of that emergent system mentioned ut (or was it up? Fucking memory of mine.) supra.

A character changes the world by his, or her, actions - But if those actions have not a real, in a gameplay way, background (possesion of the character, and not abstraction for the player to mentally masturbate about), they are left as the actions of the Player by means of a Tools. Therefore, the player itself becomes not the guiding force carrying the character along his, or her, destiny, but the motivation itself.

If roleplaying such personality is a non consequential mini-mindgame for the player, and then he abides by the rules set by such personality without those being reflected by the system, isn't it identical to what those so much criticized ESFers do when they play as if the system reflected their characters while it does not, and as such are called LARPers?

And not much different, also, to a first person shooter - In those, the gun in the screen is nothing but the tool of the player. The character, if only a skillset by rule of gameplay, is nothing more than such gun.

Quite a double standard here exposed lies, but you can shove it back in the cupboard if so the hive mind chooses by principle of self preservation.

Dixi.

 

[John Yossarian]

Emo chimp.

There are two issues here Pseudo.
A) IT is focusing on roleplaying the PC's skillset in AoD.
B) The few members of the Codex that have posted are arguing against choices with no consequences.

If you want to rant at VD for not putting personality choices in dialogue (with consequences of course) go ahead, but don't blame the whole Codex for it. I'd love to see something like that (PST would have been perfect for that kind of thing, missed opportunity IMO), but not at the expense of skill roleplaying. If you can get them both in, great, but unless the game has no or few skills, the skillset roleplaying must come first, since that is where you control your character the most, so that should be what the world recognizes and reacts to.

Now, about B), this is not an argument against roleplaying personalities. It's against putting in personality choices which make no difference to anyone in the gameworld. About half the posters in this thread have taken Lestat's idea and suggested ways to include consequences, and I have yet to see anyone argue against those "improved" versions (and VD saying it's not in his game is not the same as saying he's against it, but maybe he is).
Also, I'm pretty sure all the codexers that have given their opinion on the subject believe the player should be in charge of the "decision making" for the PC, and the PC is in charge of "carrying out the action", and the success of each falls on their respective shoulders. If you wanna call that LARPing, go ahead, but it's not something new at the Codex.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In real life, social interaction is much less dependant on "skill set" ...

Social interaction is not one of AoD's features or design goals. Handling objectives in different, skill-based ways is. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, of course, but the latter matters to me more. Giving you an option to role-play a personality is less important to me than giving you an option to do things differently.

Roleplaying is also considered to become the character, and think not as you (and be not you) but him, or her, in those interactions.

Maybe, maybe not. To me, role-playing is not becoming a character, developing a personality and acting it out in dialogues, but being able to do things in a manner fitting my character.

I.e. if I'm playing a thief, I shouldn't be expected to storm a castle's gate using sneak attacks instead of power attacks. A rarely seen "wall climbing" option is much more important than a choice of "personality" responses.

Ergo, the posture you are now defending is, in itself, contrary to roleplaying and to the supossed ideals of the Codex. Here, where everyone talks about depth, is the superficial being defended?

Not so fast. First, you claim that the "skillset role-playing" lacks depth and thus shallow, and then you use this claim to launch another one, stating that it goes against the ideals of the Codex. Nice try, but the first claim should be proven first, don't you think?

Here, where everyone talks about choices and consequences, do we forget that the consequences that each day affects our lives are not in itself a product of our actions, but of the personality and ideals behind those?

True, but personality and ideas behind it are manifested in actions.

Look at the following options,

Wise choice. Many people sell very valuable items without appraising, for only a fraction of their real price. For 50 imperials I'd be glad to research this very valuable artifact for you.

1. Here is the money. What can you tell me?
2. [streetwise] Easy there. It's just a piece of parchment. Let's leave this "valuable artifact" for farmers and discuss a reasonable price.
3. [persuasion] Your price is acceptable. I'm staying at the inn, send your bill there.
4. [trading] 50 imperials? If you're as good as you're greedy, I'm in luck. 20 imperials and I will forget the insult.
5. I don't have any money, so let's find another way.
6. Maybe later.

The first 4 options give you 5 personalities to work with (the persuasion option gives you an opportunity either to lie or to honor your promise), as it's very easy to trace these options to corresponding personalities.

Quite a double standard here exposed lies...

Adhuc sub judice lis est.

 

[PseudoIntellectual Snob]

IT is focusing on roleplaying the PC's skillset in AoD.

I know, and i am taking a posture against such focus. Or, more so, i am questioning the choice without being inherently for it or against it.

If you want to rant at VD for not putting personality choices in dialogue (with consequences of course) go ahead, but don't blame the whole Codex for it.

I am not blaming the Codex, and i am not blaming Vault Dweller. I just saw the thread, saw one possible interpretation, and thought it would be interesting to know what he and the others had to say about it.

Also, I'm pretty sure all the codexers that have given their opinion on the subject believe the player should be in charge of the "decision making" for the PC, and the PC is in charge of "carrying out the action", and the success of each falls on their respective shoulders. If you wanna call that LARPing, go ahead, but it's not something new at the Codex.

That's no argument. I know where (at least as a rough generalization) the consensus is, since i do not remember reading many, if at all, discussions questioning the focus on skillset instead of personality. I am argumenting, or just discussing as it may be, how correct is such concensus.

And on the LARPing side of my argument i am just saying that if, for a quick example that may or may not be entirely correct, a player who is eating and drinking regularly in a game that does not enforce or react in any way to such actions is LARPing, then a player who is limiting the actions of a character based on an imagined personality that bears no gameplay consequences is LARPing too. Both choose to limit the range of possible actions and reactions the character has at his, or her, disposal for the sake of some arbitrary, unsuported by the game mechanics, concept of what the character is or should be.

It is quite easy to see where i am comming from and wich logic i used for that part of my exposition.

Social interaction is not one of AoD's features or design goals. Handling objectives in different, skill-based ways is. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, of course, but the latter matters to me more. Giving you an option to role-play a personality is less important to me than giving you an option to do things differently.

As stated ut supra, given such case the following paragraphs are to be considered a purely theorical discussion on the principles behind interaction with the gameworld, characters, and context.

I.e. if I'm playing a thief, I shouldn't be expected to storm a castle's gate using sneak attacks instead of power attacks. A rarely seen "wall climbing" option is much more important than a choice of "personality" responses.

Right you are about that, and no one is saying a different thing. But one more castle stormed, trinket stolen, and wall climbed is not going to interact with the, and change the, gameworld in any meaningful (meaningfull?) way. It is the motivations behind those acts that a world sees, interprets or missinterprets, ponders, and then changes itself in accordance.

At least so i believe. The Homo Sapiens vs Homo Faber conflict is as old as thought itself, permeates our context a lot more than it seems, and i hold no dreams or delussions of being the one who resolves it once and for all.

Not so fast. First, you claim that the "skillset role-playing" lacks depth and thus shallow, and then you use this claim to launch another one, stating that it goes against the ideals of the Codex. Nice try, but the first claim should be proven first, don't you think?

Indeed, mea culpa. I'll try to.

Say, my character has a high enough streetwise score and is in the situation you used as an example in that same post. Therefore, he is given the option to doubt the validity of the claim about this parchment being a valuable "Ancient Artifact." Another character, if given a similar skillset, would have precisely the same options as mine regardless of what his personality and ideals, as a simplification of a psychological structure, are. As far as the game cares they are one and the same character.

Exempli Gratia, say character A is not a fast-talking witty scoundrel but an introspective and non-confrontational scholar whose "street smarts" come from careful observing and analyzing social rituals, personality types, paradigmatical interaction, and the nuances of human communication, verbal and otherwise. Character B is, instead, that already mentioned fast-talking witty scoundrel, dashing and oportunistic, with a certain degree of animal cunning and an empirical knowledge of how the streets works or whatever. Would both have the same way of approaching the "Streetwise" option? No. And would not their disparate ways make different impressions in the interloper and observers, that by rumor and gossip would lead to different characters reacting different ways, maybe opening different options for them to ponder and react to? In many different ways, actually.

Say, quest is to murder the president, whomever that may be in our respective contexts. I can go and murder mine with a revolver, and you can go and murder yours with a sniper rifle. Does that difference make both acts in themselves any different in a non superficial way? Does that choice gives depth (or is it deep in this case?) to the act or are the motivations and viewpoints, the personality disorders and the assimilated values, and at last the reasoning, or lack of, that made us choose one weapon over another that wich makes the act deep in itself? Killing the president is going to change nothing but the current, immediate context where the reasons, motivations, et al. behind such murder have the potential to change the cultural and ideological shape of the world (as in context, not object) beyond all recognition, one way or another, over a variable span of time.

Threading dangerous terrain, as far i understand the true importance of 9/11 was not in the act itself but in what implications/meanings this act had for the american people. The reaction to such event was dependant on those implications and meanings, and not the act itself. (Note: I know this may sound as "troll baiting," but it is not. I simply lacked of another event as well known and discused, with consequences as well known and discused, by every random guy as that one. Forgive any real or imagined lack of taste.)

Taking a look into the characters of most great literary/theatrical/cinematographical works one comes up with another example: Some Servants, Apothecary, Soldier A and Soldier B, Swamp's Witch, Et Al. are just extras or, at most, secondary characters, defined by their "skillset" and how this "skillset" places them inside the events. But they are nothing more, lacking any real depth. Were they deep, they would not be defined as what they "do" but who they "are." A character defined by 50% Speech and 25% Small Guns is not any different, and since the focus of RPGs is in the characters and their interactions with the context...

Maybe a Q.E.D, maybe not. It partially depends of we talking of depth as in Game Mechanics or as in Gameworld/Character/Context, so take your pick.

Adhuc sub judice lis est.

May that never change, as discussions reveal truth and conclussions veil it.

 

[galsiah]

A few quick points:
(1) There is always meaning in actions with consequence. The game needn't have specific mechanics to deal with meaning/motivation, since these are implicit in the actions+consequences themselves.

(2) Limiting PC actions by personality would be reasonable. However, in order to limit by personality, and to limit by skillset, you'd need a huge variety of options. Limiting by skillset is a necessity - since a character must be able to carry out option X. Limiting by personality isn't. If VD had unlimited time, I'd say go for both. If it's one of the other, limiting by skillset is the more credible - and possibly more interesting too.

(3) Any decision to play a game in any style could in some sense be described as "LARPing" by your argument. E.g. artificially constraining yourself to play someone who wants to stay alive or to win the game.... There's no absolute difference between "eating food for no reason" LARPing, and "making significant actions in character" for no reason - one's just on the daft end of the same scale. The codexian view is that support for the first is needless, and support for the second is entertaining - because the decisions the second supports are more interesting decisions. There's no absolute distinction, so you don't get to use the absolute argument against anything else.
There's just "dull" near one end of the scale and "interesting" near the other.
(if you think personality-based decisions can be [more] interesting, me too - but see (2))

(4) If you're going to throw in Latin all over the place, expanding e.g. for no earthly reason etc. - then please learn to spell "dependent". Otherwise you're just going to look silly. (appealing to the acceptability of "dependant" as a variant would make you no kind of snob at all)

 

[Alex]

Hello there!

From what I gathered from this thread, this game will not support various kinds of answer that lead to the same objective in the end (called by VD as "personality roleplaying". However, are there instances where the way your character acts on something changes the way the world reacts? For example, speaking calmly in a heated situation might avert combat.

Also, I would like to state that I prefer dialogue options to do not be very well defined. Unless there is a specific need for an option, I believe they should remain fairly generic, allowing the player's mind to fill in the gaps (like Jasede mentioned). In Ultima 7, your responses almost always consisted on single words, but it still managed to do a good job (I will, however, admit a lot of that game's dialogue consisted of the npcs giving long explanations about whatever you asked). I would not ask the same one word rule of AoD, but I believe you shouldn't put too much character in each response.

By the way, what is everyone's opinion in having the way you say things being of consequense? I don't think we even need to go as far as Jasede's three answers example. A game where being rude to a noble was as quick way to the cemetery as showing him no backbone seems nice but I guess a lot of people would get angry if suddenly they are penalized because of the way they choose to roleplay their characters.

 

[spacemoose]

Say, my character has a high enough streetwise score and is in the situation you used as an example in that same post. Therefore, he is given the option to doubt the validity of the claim about this parchment being a valuable "Ancient Artifact." Another character, if given a similar skillset, would have precisely the same options as mine regardless of what his personality and ideals, as a simplification of a psychological structure, are. As far as the game cares they are one and the same character.

as galsiah mentioned above, it is impossible to write dialogue options for ALL possible personalities that a given skill archetype might have, that is the weakness simulated games have compared to playing with real people. so having multiple dialogue paths to the same goal for one character archetype is superfluous because its impossible to consider them all. and given the choice of a dialogue options with some character, like the one's we've seen so far, as opposed to the vaguest "more money" or "news" keywords, I'll take the fully written out ones.

Would both have the same way of approaching the "Streetwise" option? No. And would not their disparate ways make different impressions in the interloper and observers, that by rumor and gossip would lead to different characters reacting different ways, maybe opening different options for them to ponder and react to? In many different ways, actually.

that's not a good example, since only the wily grifter has streetwise there, the learned (nerd) knows OF streetwise, but his specialty is much more esoteric knowledge rather than practical application of it, so the options he would consider would rely on his lore skill. otherwise his approach would become exactly like the grifter's.

Threading dangerous terrain, as far i understand the true importance of 9/11 was not in the act itself but in what implications/meanings this act had for the american people. The reaction to such event was dependant on those implications and meanings, and not the act itself. (Note: I know this may sound as "troll baiting," but it is not. I simply lacked of another event as well known and discused, with consequences as well known and discused, by every random guy as that one. Forgive any real or imagined lack of taste.)

there is no dangerous terrain at the codex, and that's what makes it great, chickenbutt

Taking a look into the characters of most great literary/theatrical/cinematographical works one comes up with another example: Some Servants, Apothecary, Soldier A and Soldier B, Swamp's Witch, Et Al. are just extras or, at most, secondary characters, defined by their "skillset" and how this "skillset" places them inside the events. But they are nothing more, lacking any real depth. Were they deep, they would not be defined as what they "do" but who they "are."

and a good RPG will account for this, defining an NPC's dialogue by who he is - his wants, motivations and relationship to other NPCs. several games have done this well. in this case there is no problem of needing a multitude of options - just several key motives will do. maybe I'm missing your point, but NPCs and their behavior should be all about personality, and I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise.

 

[jeansberg]

By the way, what is everyone's opinion in having the way you say things being of consequense? I don't think we even need to go as far as Jasede's three answers example. A game where being rude to a noble was as quick way to the cemetery as showing him no backbone seems nice but I guess a lot of people would get angry if suddenly they are penalized because of the way they choose to roleplay their characters.

I'm pretty sure there are those kinds of options. Your etiquette skill would surely come into play when speaking to a noble, as well as your relations with the different houses.

 

[PseudoIntellectual Snob]

(1) There is always meaning in actions with consequence. The game needn't have specific mechanics to deal with meaning/motivation, since these are implicit in the actions+consequences themselves.

(2) Limiting PC actions by personality would be reasonable. However, in order to limit by personality, and to limit by skillset, you'd need a huge variety of options. Limiting by skillset is a necessity - since a character must be able to carry out option X. Limiting by personality isn't. If VD had unlimited time, I'd say go for both. If it's one of the other, limiting by skillset is the more credible - and possibly more interesting too.

as galsiah mentioned above, it is impossible to write dialogue options for ALL possible personalities that a given skill archetype might have, that is the weakness simulated games have compared to playing with real people.

I know it is impossible to give you options for all possible variables. But giving just one limits the roleplaying way too much. A possible compromise is to give only options for generalized archetypes: Confrontational Option, Non-Confrontational Option, Vague/Mysterious Option, one or two more. Then, based on whom you are talking to, the option you choose give you a (invisible for the player) bonus/malus in the roll or the roll dificulty. Not hard to script at all.

that's not a good example, since only the wily grifter has streetwise there, the learned (nerd) knows OF streetwise, but his specialty is much more esoteric knowledge rather than practical application of it, so the options he would consider would rely on his lore skill. otherwise his approach would become exactly like the grifter's.

Point well taken. I suck at examples.

there is no dangerous terrain at the codex, and that's what makes it great, chickenbutt.

I know, but my psychological reflexes ignore such knowledge. What is a chickenbutt?

and a good RPG will account for this, defining an NPC's dialogue by who he is - his wants, motivations and relationship to other NPCs. several games have done this well. in this case there is no problem of needing a multitude of options - just several key motives will do. maybe I'm missing your point, but NPCs and their behavior should be all about personality, and I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise.

I was refering to the PC, not the NPCs. When there is no way to express the personality or character of the PC, he turns into a character sheet devoid of all qualities beyond skill levels.

Exempli Gratia, there is a situation at the end of a quest in a random, non-specified, made up game. You can try to argument with the character (diplomacy), try to get a better price (bartering), question the quality of the product (streetwise), try to put fear in the interloper (some combat skill?), and a couple options more. Now, if there is just one dialogue option for every skill, it is the same than choosing the skill and be done with it: The infamous "I roll charisma" every P&P GM hates with a passion. If there are more than one option for every skill, even if this represent just a malus/bonus in the roll or the roll dificulty, you can express who your character is, as an individual, and suffer, or delight on, the consequences of his nature.

(3) Any decision to play a game in any style could in some sense be described as "LARPing" by your argument. E.g. artificially constraining yourself to play someone who wants to stay alive or to win the game.... There's no absolute difference between "eating food for no reason" LARPing, and "making significant actions in character" for no reason - one's just on the daft end of the same scale. The codexian view is that support for the first is needless, and support for the second is entertaining - because the decisions the second supports are more interesting decisions. There's no absolute distinction, so you don't get to use the absolute argument against anything else.

I am not against such viewpoint, in fact. I reckon roleplaying a personality, with or without consequences, can be interesting as an intellectual exercise, and thus entertaining to indulge into - But that does not make it any less LARPing, as it is completely divorced of the involved game mechanics and logic.

Exempli Gratia, When you play chess, you are not LARPing if you want to win as "victory" is part of the game's own logic, just as survival and defeat are (even if abstracted). You are LARPing if you do not sacrifice a given piece because his kids are going to grow without a father and his woman will take up prostitution to feed them if you do and such outcome is unacceptable for a great and caring general as you - something alien to that logic. Extreme example, and i suck at examples, but useful none the less i think.

(4) If you're going to throw in Latin all over the place, expanding e.g. for no earthly reason etc. - then please learn to spell "dependent". Otherwise you're just going to look silly. (appealing to the acceptability of "dependant" as a variant would make you no kind of snob at all)

I love Latin, by several reasons. I do not love English, by several others. The former i use out of love, the later out of need, and i usually write quite long posts, so you can expect worse things than a few typos and a few latin expressions being thrown around. I was actually holding back with the latin and checking for typos every time the "image" of the word was just too strange to be natural. xP

In any case, i care for those people who may consider me smart or stupid or silly based on what i think, write, and argument about - not in how many typos i indulge in, how many latin expressions i throw around, and how many stupid emotes i do use when i feel like it. So there, no hard feelings as you seem to be an alright and rational guy, but cut the crap. Using latin expressions is not sign of someone being a pseudointellectual snob or trying to look "smart," regardless what my nick has to say on the matter.

Ergo, the importance of background, personality, and intention over superficial actions.

Also, I would like to state that I prefer dialogue options to do not be very well defined. Unless there is a specific need for an option, I believe they should remain fairly generic, allowing the player's mind to fill in the gaps (like Jasede mentioned). In Ultima 7, your responses almost always consisted on single words, but it still managed to do a good job (I will, however, admit a lot of that game's dialogue consisted of the npcs giving long explanations about whatever you asked). I would not ask the same one word rule of AoD, but I believe you shouldn't put too much character in each response.

That would be a possible solution, even if the "one word" approach i do not like very much. It is possible to have well written but neutral, from the personality point of view, lines for the character. It requires a lot of technique and skill, but the one we are indirectly talking about here does not lack those, in my opinion. So there.



And forgive the late response. It is not considered threadomancy yet, right?

 

[MF]

Using latin expressions is not sign of someone being a pseudointellectual snob or trying to look "smart," regardless what my nick has to say on the matter.

De gustibus non est disputandum, sed de minimus non curo. Barba non facit philosophum. Quo usque tandem abutere patentia nostra? Mihi videtur tu linguam latinam melius scire.

 

[Jasede]

Shuttus the fuckus upus.

 

[Claw]

Hahaha.

 

[Black]

Using latin expressions is not sign of someone being a pseudointellectual snob or trying to look "smart," regardless what my nick has to say on the matter.

De gustibus non est disputandum, sed de minimus non curo. Barba non facit philosophum. Quo usque tandem abutere patentia nostra? Mihi videtur tu linguam latinam melius scire.

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

 

[jeansberg]

Quid pro bono! Ex parte!

 

[Naked Ninja]

Pompous Psuedo Intellectuals for the loss.

Pompous Psuedo Intellectuals who know a bit of latin doubly so.

 

[MF]

Using latin expressions is not sign of someone being a pseudointellectual snob or trying to look "smart," regardless what my nick has to say on the matter.

De gustibus non est disputandum, sed de minimus non curo. Barba non facit philosophum. Quo usque tandem abutere patentia nostra? Mihi videtur tu linguam latinam melius scire.

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

You hit the nail right on the head there. For 'love' of the language my ass. He just wants to sound smart, and completely fails. Why write 'Exempli Gratia' -in caps, which is wrong- when e.g. is the perfectly accepted shorthand? Smart? Sounds more like dumb to me.

To put in my two cents for the topic: This brainy smurf is arguing in favour of roleplaying personalities. I'll dismiss the entire notion on merit of that. You can't 'roll charisma' as he put it and then choose a dialogue option. If you fail the roll, it doesn't matter which option you choose. If you succeed the roll..guess what? Right: doesn't matter. It's purely cosmetic. If you make the roll dependent on the choice, when why have charisma in the first place? You're taking your characters skill and applying your own choices to the outcome of something that was done with your characters skill. That's the kind of crippling scenario you get when you put a Quake 3 champion in charge of a Bloodlines character. Fuck those stats, right?

 

[John Yossarian]

I don't think he suggested making the roll completely dependent on the personality choice. It could just be a small influence, whose value could be dependent on your present personality, the personality you have portrayed before with whoever your talking to or his group, and his personality.
But this could lead to gaming the personalities, instead of actually giving the PC one, so a good, global way of keeping track of your dialogue choices and personalities they correspond to would be needed so that, just like choosing factions, a benefit here is a loss there. Seems like a lot of work.