The New World design topic #3: Dialogue Checks

[Deleted Member 16721]

I always like a percentage roll-based check based on your stats. Gives more unpredictability and excitement to the dialogue than a static "if you have 'x' number you automatically pass it."

 

[Vault Dweller]

You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.

Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?

It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer.

I don't think so. Essentially, you'll be offered very specific options, let's say appeal to loyalty, appeal to self-interest, appeal to self-preservation (just one specific example). So it will be about reading the character and figuring out which way he/she's leaning. Overall, we tried something similar in 3 conversations in AoD (Lorenza, Azra, praetor investigating Senna's murder) and the players seemed to like it.

Are you saying we will be able to see just mood/tone or the whole answer? Or maybe both like
1.[persuasion][loyalty] Bla bla bla...
2.[persuasion][interest] Bla bla...

Otherwise I can see it been confusing at some point, especially for not so advanced english readers.

I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.

 

[Turtle-Zone 3000]

You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.

Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?

It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.

Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer.

I don't think so. Essentially, you'll be offered very specific options, let's say appeal to loyalty, appeal to self-interest, appeal to self-preservation (just one specific example). So it will be about reading the character and figuring out which way he/she's leaning. Overall, we tried something similar in 3 conversations in AoD (Lorenza, Azra, praetor investigating Senna's murder) and the players seemed to like it.

Are you saying we will be able to see just mood/tone or the whole answer? Or maybe both like
1.[persuasion][loyalty] Bla bla bla...
2.[persuasion][interest] Bla bla...

Otherwise I can see it been confusing at some point, especially for not so advanced english readers.

I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.

I think the initial assumption here is tying too much of character into what is just a skill check.
Ideally what could be done to accommodate varying different character dispositions is some kind of personality stat, which changes how the skill appears to be carried out and possibly barring choices.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer.

I don't think so. Essentially, you'll be offered very specific options, let's say appeal to loyalty, appeal to self-interest, appeal to self-preservation (just one specific example). So it will be about reading the character and figuring out which way he/she's leaning. Overall, we tried something similar in 3 conversations in AoD (Lorenza, Azra, praetor investigating Senna's murder) and the players seemed to like it.

Are you saying we will be able to see just mood/tone or the whole answer? Or maybe both like
1.[persuasion][loyalty] Bla bla bla...
2.[persuasion][interest] Bla bla...

No mood/tone tags.

Otherwise I can see it been confusing at some point, especially for not so advanced english readers.

Considering that it's a text-heavy game, if someone can't understand the meaning of a sentence, it's unlikely that he/she would be able to enjoy the game regardless of the dialogue system used.

I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.

If your skill is low, your character *will* fail regardless of the player's intention. There won't be one right answer but different directions.

 

[Neanderthal]

You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.

Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?

It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.

I can imagine a few situations in which a stoic might be heeded more than the verbose: Say we're reporting to a gruff, surly quartermaster to equip ourselves for a dangerous assignment. He might well respect the strong, silent types who barks out. "Phase Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." Demonstrating both knowledge and decisiveness, rather than a more flowery approach or wheedling. Though arguably that could be tied into a combat skill more than dialogue.

Or you could be trying to woo an old blood and thunder general, and a firm handshake and steely gaze might sell you better than more convoluted wordplay. "Only two types of talkers I've ever known boy, conmen and queers! Which one are you?"

 

[Mr. Hiver]

There definitely should be NPCs who prefer more direct and simple language by default, since its just how some people are. Like me. The more verbose and flowery someone gets the more i hate them, even if they are are saying everything i want to hear.

But of course the content of what you say should be something the NPC accepts or needs/wants.

Im pretty certain there will be some NPCs in the game who are like that. No bullshit straight to the point personalities.

No need to invent new skills to make that work. Writing dialogue adapted for such personalities should suffice and it doesnt require anything but making simpler versions of the winning sentences.
So if you choose a verbose version of the correct dialogue choice you get -1 to the score, (or more depending on the situation), but if you chose short and direct version with same meaning you get +1.
That shouldn't be hard to do.

I think this new system is a huge improvement over the usual approach.

Im guessing that "It will be very clear when a person doesn't buy your arguments or bullshit." will be presented through written text as descriptions of reactions to your dialogue choices.

In that case one nice addition to the system presents itself. Those descriptions of NPCs reactions should be visible/available only if the speech skill is high.
Otherwise every character any player makes would have exactly same ability to read other people reactions.
Bonus for highly intelligent characters. Nerf for low intelligence characters.


hmm... hmm, hmm, mmm.... Oh yeah, another nice idea just popped up. But im keeping that for myself.
It would be out of scope for this game development anyway.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.

Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?

It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.

I can imagine a few situations in which a stoic might be heeded more than the verbose: Say we're reporting to a gruff, surly quartermaster to equip ourselves for a dangerous assignment. He might well respect the strong, silent types who barks out. "Phase Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." Demonstrating both knowledge and decisiveness, rather than a more flowery approach or wheedling. Though arguably that could be tied into a combat skill more than dialogue.

Or you could be trying to woo an old blood and thunder general, and a firm handshake and steely gaze might sell you better than more convoluted wordplay. "Only two types of talkers I've ever known boy, conmen and queers! Which one are you?"

I'm talking about situations where you have to convince people to do something they don't want to do (i.e. slowly overcome the resistance and make them see the benefits of your proposal) whereas you're talking about gaining someone's respect or getting a minor boon. Imagine, for argument's sake, that you have to convince that old blood and thunder general to switch or something relatively minor like not sending you into battle (because you're a more of a talker). If he asks why, telling him "War is hell" with a firm handshake and steely gaze won't help him see your point of view better.

 

[harhar!]

My concern is that a highly skilled talker could just pick a lot of dumb arguments and still get through. I propose that your skill unlocks some dialogue options but doesn't affect the success/points.

Obviously, it might increase meta-gaming but that’s your choice and thus not our concern. Every time the player is offered to make a choice with different outcomes, 8 out of 10 people would want to know the outcomes in advance and the exact way to get to the outcome they want.

Revealing some consequences in the long term might help. Say if someone figures that I'm lying to him he might play along and fuck me in the ass later, instead of immediately attacking or blocking further conversation.

 

[Black Angel]

I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.

How does choosing the appropriate dialogue options could subvert the character's established skills/personality in the case of the proposed system? Keyword here is 'appropriate', which means the dialogue options presented will almost always be the one that's relevant to character's stats and skills. It has always been that way among most RPGs worth their salt, but in case of the proposed system for CS, there's an added layer of C&C where you need to pay careful attention to what your character is going to say.

My concern is that a highly skilled talker could just pick a lot of dumb arguments and still get through. I propose that your skill unlocks some dialogue options but doesn't affect the success/points.

Exactly as what the proposed system is:

The biggest conceptual change is that the tagged lines would now represent an attempt without any guarantees of success. It’s up to the player to read people based on the available info and consider what would work best. You can have two different streetwise lines, for example, one would result in a positive reaction, the other in a negative.

That brings us to the second biggest change. Most lines would no longer lead to success or failures but result in positive and negative reactions, represented numerically. Your skill level would act as modifiers, magnifying positive reactions and reducing the effect of blunders. The final check would tally up the reactions, which will determine whether you’ve succeeded or failed.

Imagine that [Barter] check with Dean Domino during Dead Money, where you need to carefully read what kind of characters you're conversing with, and carefully choose your words when you're given the chance to talk. It seems they managed to pull this off with Lorenza in AoD, though sadly I kind of don't see which part exactly, although I honestly really liked that I unlocked Game of Thrones achievement upon giving Lorenza the Magistrate (?) position.

 

[Excommunicator]

Immediately evident. It will be very clear when a person doesn't buy your arguments or bullshit. Nothing over the top, normal reactions.

Not sure I quite like it that way. First, the temptation to reload will be too damn high, at least for me, as I sadly dont have enough time to play it several times, so I ll try to squeeze the most out of one playthrough and if that means savescumming, well, I'm down to it. Second, in adult situations, pretty much nobody tells you yes or no straight away, unless your demands are not entirely unreasonable. For example, I've been pestering my supervisor here in the European Parliament, trying to prolong my stay, trying this approach or that and have yet to receive a straight answer (and no, it's not a guaranteed refusal, I know it as a fact). So I'd much prefer if the results werent immediately evident and instead relied on player's deduction skills and other side factors.

In your example you're a humble beggar dealing with an indifferent bureaucrat. There aren't many arguments you can make there and there's nothing you can offer to the bureaucrat, so there's nothing there to react to. He is just delaying the decision, probably because there's some paperwork involved.

When you're dealing with a potential client, for example, you have a lot more "tactical" options and you see the reaction right away (so you know when to backtrack and when to push forward). In fact, this reaction is vital and helps you determine the line of attack. It would be nearly impossible to sell anything without it.

I beg your pardon, sirrah? Beggar yourself . He has much to gain, and so do I, and there are others vying for that sweet sweet spot. I didn't say I was craving the window-cleaner vacancy, have I now? So its exactly right attitude for him not to say yes or no, to wait and assess his options and pick the one he can benefit from the most.

As for your second argument, it just reinforces my point, no? Nobody says yes or no in any tactical negotiations straight after you've uttered your first line, nobody is giving away their agenda through immediate reactions and in fact, "I agree" is the last word you'd want to say in talks over a contentious subject. No, you get a hint on what the other party would like to see done the other way, you counter it with your own paradigm, and so on until a consensus has been found. It might be somewhat different in the marketing field, I've never actually sold anything in my life, but I'm relying on my seven year-long attendance & reporting on highest lvl inter-party and inter-state affairs in Brussels. You can hardly find a better place to study negotiations.

This is actually an amazing interaction that sheds a strong light on the way VD thinks, writes and makes games.

A very reasonable scenario given by someone who is essentially a real world diplomat, interpreted in a very cold, rigid and unfeeling way.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

I also love how when he dislikes a suggestion, he turns that idea into the worst possible version that doesnt even make any sense and then says "see, this is so bad we cant have that."

Imagine, for argument's sake, that you have to convince that old blood and thunder general to switch or something relatively minor like not sending you into battle (because you're a more of a talker). If he asks why, telling him "War is hell" with a firm handshake and steely gaze won't help him see your point of view better.

Yes, lets imagine you are trying to convince an old blood general to let you avoid your basic and crucial duty. Its relatively minor - hmmpff. And you try that by using one of the worst dumb dialogue options.

See? it would never work!

Thats some high speech skills right there.
Funny how some readers with low Int were convinced.

 

[Neanderthal]

You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.

Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?

It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.

I can imagine a few situations in which a stoic might be heeded more than the verbose: Say we're reporting to a gruff, surly quartermaster to equip ourselves for a dangerous assignment. He might well respect the strong, silent types who barks out. "Phase Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." Demonstrating both knowledge and decisiveness, rather than a more flowery approach or wheedling. Though arguably that could be tied into a combat skill more than dialogue.

Or you could be trying to woo an old blood and thunder general, and a firm handshake and steely gaze might sell you better than more convoluted wordplay. "Only two types of talkers I've ever known boy, conmen and queers! Which one are you?"

I'm talking about situations where you have to convince people to do something they don't want to do (i.e. slowly overcome the resistance and make them see the benefits of your proposal) whereas you're talking about gaining someone's respect or getting a minor boon. Imagine, for argument's sake, that you have to convince that old blood and thunder general to switch or something relatively minor like not sending you into battle (because you're a more of a talker). If he asks why, telling him "War is hell" with a firm handshake and steely gaze won't help him see your point of view better.

The Zerth seemed reluctant. His black, beady eyes drilled into his erstwhile student with a fierce intensity and maybe, just maybe a flicker of hope or curiosity. The Nameless One thought over the text he had read, the test that he must pass to learn of Da'akon and his people, to gain the old mans oft abused trust. The tale was long and convoluted but one theme kept recurring, but how best to encapsulate Zerthimons struggle?

Finally he met Da'akons gaze, "Endure, in enduring grow strong."

The Zerths expression did not change, his stare did not waiver, but the Karach blade he wore shifted and roiled.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I also love how when he dislikes a suggestion, he turns that idea into the worst possible version that doesnt even make any sense and then says "see, this is so bad we cant have that."

As I mentioned several times, the new system was designed for and will kick in lengthy dialogues when you're trying to convince someone to do what he doesn't want to do. That's the key part, that's why lengthy dialogues are necessary because you can't change someone's opinion/position/belief with few words, which in turn is why the new system is necessary. It won't be used when you're asking for minor things or making good impressions or any other quick exchanges. Neanderthal' suggestions belong to the latter category as the gruff quartermaster isn't strongly opposed to you having the right equipment. Such conversations (as well as conversations where lines reflecting your personality are as important as skill-based lines) will be in the game as they already were in AoD.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Yes i understand what you mean by that. Its not like its complicated.

But the problem is you dont understand what exactly the Neanderthal is saying. He is talking about some personalities reacting better to specific ways of people expressing themselves, in line with their character and personality traits.
But you also need to choose what exactly you are saying. Just like in the example of PST he posted.
Not just convincing someone by choosing short replies out of any context.

Additionally, in your example, nobody would be able to persuade that general to release a soldier from fighting in a battle no matter what style of dialogue or persuasion is taken.
At best the soldier would be outright shot or court marshaled and sent to prison. Its not a minor thing - its treason or extreme cowardice. And in that situation as a soldier you also are trying to bargain without any leverage at all, which you noted as a criticism of the previous poster suggestions. That situation - which doesnt have anything to do with what neanderthal is saying - is impossible to win in any way if the only options are just lengths of sentences and style of dialogue.
You would need some extreme leverage to win in that discussion - but then the strength of the leverage would win, not the style of the argument.

The way you presented it is absurd and completely impossible to win. No need to discuss that example any more.

As for the lengthy versus short and direct style of dialogue, i already gave you an easy solution.
For specific important NPC characters that prefer clear and direct style of talking - you simply provide extra sentences that have the same crucial points and facts as the otherwise verbose winning options.
So in that case the verbose sentence with same meaning would get you maybe +1, but the short clear and direct form of that would give you +2.

Or maybe, a verbose flowery TToN dialogue option would even give -1 in some cases. (i think it would be better to have a wider range of numerical scores, -1 to 5 (10?), to allow for finer precision)

But you still need to choose the right dialogue option with specific meaning.

You did notice a lot of people prefer the style of writing AoD has, which is opposite to TToN style.
Maybe not an overall majority but enough to matter.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But the problem is you dont understand what exactly the Neanderthal is saying. He is talking about some personalities reacting better to specific ways of people expressing themselves, in line with their character and personality traits.

Adding personality responses on top of skill responses would create 10-12 replies and make it too busy and messy. So it's one or the other, unfortunately.

Additionally, in your example, nobody would be able to persuade that general to release a soldier from fighting in a battle no matter what style of dialogue or persuasion is taken.

It was a joke, chill.

You did notice a lot of people prefer the style of writing AoD has, which is opposite to TToN style.

And I'm not planning on changing it.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Adding personality responses on top of skill responses would create 10-12 replies and make it too busy and messy. So it's one or the other, unfortunately.

Nope. Because you dont need to actually create "10-12" personality responses at all.
Nobody asked for full personality options dialogue.

Which is exactly why i already suggested a possible workable solution for a specific type of character that was specifically talked about.
Its about adding a bit of flavor - as fitting for specific characters, in a simple doable way. But it would also make players pay a little bit more attention to what kind of character they are talking to.

You already write characters in that way anyway.
Soldiers are more gruff, matter of fact personalities, merchants and lore-masters are verbose, nobles like etiquette, etc.

And I'm not planning on changing it.

Yeah, thats the same thing really.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

This thread about persuasion has become very meta.

Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.

The only time a laconic approach to persuasion works reliably is when you already have power/status/influence so the person you’re talking to has a huge built-in incentive to agree with whatever you say. It’s probably not a coincidence that the word laconic comes from the Lakonian (Spartan) reputation for brevity. Your diplomats don’t need to make big speeches when they’re backed by the largest, best trained military force in the region.

Sure, there are situations where someone powerful will be more impressed by a man of few words, but impressing someone =/= convincing them to do something.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.

lol.

You should have rolled higher Int at creation.

 

[Neanderthal]

Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.

No, you need both intelligence and wisdom to decipher the true meaning of the Unbroken Circle, and persuade the Zerth that you have not just read the words but understand their lesson. A feat which he is extremely sceptical of.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.

No, you need both intelligence and wisdom to decipher the true meaning of the Unbroken Circle, and persuade the Zerth that you have not just read the words but understand their lesson. A feat which he is extremely sceptical of.

Sure, it’s a quiz that you can’t pass without the appropriate attributes. You’re still not trying to convince him to do something. He’s already agreed to teach you at that point and already given you the fucking circle.

Funnily enough, when you do eventually get the opportunity to convince Dak’kon that his interpretation of the unbroken circle is wrong later on—an actual attempt at persuasion—you use a hell of a lot more words, not a pithy one-liner. In not *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon, you have defeated your own argument.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

You’re still not trying to convince him to do something.

The whole of the dialogues with Dakkon is you trying to shape him to do what you want, - are you really that fucking stupid?

TNO used Dakkon in previous lives and you need him to achieve your goals in this incarnation too.
And for him to be able to do that you literally need to heal his traumas and level him up in the process. You are not only trying to get him to do something - but you are literally changing how he thinks - in order for him to help you.

an actual attempt at persuasion—you use a hell of a lot more words, not a pithy one-liner.

Nobody is talking about "pithy one liners" - MORON. Except you. Because you are that type of dumb hypocrite who cannot make an actual argument so you change the meaning into something completely different to - win.
Or, in that disgusting desire to whiteknight VD, your brain gets so warped you cannot understand what is the idea at all.

In not *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon, you have defeated your own argument.

Why dont you shoot yourself in the face while youre at it? Eat some glue.
Same effect as this line.

 

[Neanderthal]

Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.

No, you need both intelligence and wisdom to decipher the true meaning of the Unbroken Circle, and persuade the Zerth that you have not just read the words but understand their lesson. A feat which he is extremely sceptical of.

Sure, it’s a quiz that you can’t pass without the appropriate attributes. You’re still not trying to convince him to do something. He’s already agreed to teach you at that point and already given you the fucking circle.

Funnily enough, when you do eventually get the opportunity to convince Dak’kon that his interpretation of the unbroken circle is wrong later on—an actual attempt at persuasion—you use a hell of a lot more words, not a pithy one-liner. In not *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon, you have defeated your own argument.

You're trying to convince him to teach you more of the Unbroken Circle through demonstrating your understanding, and yes you do this through attribute checks. Da'akon also has no option but to teach you when you ask to be taught, though you can affect his morale change through the approach you take when asking.

I chose the "Endure" portion because it displayed well used brevity, others Circles don't so I didn't use them, thought that was fucking obvious.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You’re still not trying to convince him to do something.

The whole of the dialogues with Dakkon is you trying to shape him to do what you want, - are you really that fucking stupid?

Dakkon is broken. He wants to be helped. TNO is acting as his therapist there, essentially. Sure, he wouldn't be able to do it without wisdom and intelligence but Dakkon is a willing participant there, not an actively resisting 'opponent'.

 

[Neanderthal]

But there's also the shame of fallen Shraktlor, and his part in it. Da'akon might on some level want help, but he doesn't want to reveal his past or his weakness to the man who bound him into slavery, as the man often says himself, "It is not my will that you KNOW this."

Almost every interaction with the Zerth revolves around persuading, tricking or bullying him into revealing more of himself. Well you know that anyway.

I'm not saying that he doesn't want help, but that there are many levels to his torment, and most of it he doesn't want Nameless to know.

It's what makes him an awesome companion.