Examples of alternatives to skill-checks that aren't "I win" buttons?

[rusty_shackleford]

Inspired by this post in general gaming

Wherever possible skill checks should provide player with mechanical challenge, instead of being "I win" buttons.

Does anyone have any examples of this?

 

[Butter]

Oblivion's speechcraft mini-game.

 

[Lemming42]

Oblivion's lockpicking mini-game.

EDIT: More seriously, stealth is the only one I can immediately think of. A lot of games with stealth skills still require the player to actually hide and stay away from enemies, the enemies just get gradually more retarded as the skill increases.

 

[Nano]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed. This is one I remember: https://vtmb.fandom.com/wiki/Gargoyle_Removal_Service

 

[Parabalus]

T:ToN had some decent ideas (limited (rest-gated) mana for every check + failure isn't always bad), but due to no balancing the end results were still "I WIN" buttons.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Stat-based gameplay is generally dull because of this. Without player skill being a factor, the only way it can be interesting is by having some meta-complexity on top of the checks, e.g. having to manage multiple units in combat, but most games only implement this for combat and not other systems, and even there, often fail.

 

[Sjukob]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed

There's similar stuff in Arcanum if my memory doesn't fail me: negotiations between Tarant and Caladon, Ashbury debates, diplomatic victory over end boss.

 

[Black Angel]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed

There's similar stuff in Arcanum if my memory doesn't fail me: negotiations between Tarant and Caladon, Ashbury debates, diplomatic victory over end boss.

The same with Fallout, as far as I know. You can't just click on dialogue options mindlessly when having a conversation with the Master, you need to carefully read and choose the dialogue options. Also, you need that holodisk evidence of Super Mutants being sterile.

 

[Saduj]

For things like locks, traps, hacking etc I prefer my character’s skill take care of it because the mini games are never fun to me. Clicking on a lock and saying open may not be fun but it also is not an annoying waste of my time. The fun comes in when I get to see what is behind the locked door, hopefully.

Same goes with dialogue trees. Except successful persuasion is more of a win button in a lot of games. So the challenge should be to make persuasion useful without it alone being the resolution to most problems. Don’t give me a mini game or make me play dialogue tree roulette. Design the quest in a better way so that even if I want to use persuasion there is more to the task than just talking.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[rusty_shackleford]

you mean like kcd minigames?

That lockpicking minigame was torture

 

[JarlFrank]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed

There's similar stuff in Arcanum if my memory doesn't fail me: negotiations between Tarant and Caladon, Ashbury debates, diplomatic victory over end boss.

The same with Fallout, as far as I know. You can't just click on dialogue options mindlessly when having a conversation with the Master, you need to carefully read and choose the dialogue options. Also, you need that holodisk evidence of Super Mutants being sterile.

Fallout and Arcanum also didn't tell you which option is the "I WIN" button by tagging every skill check.

Instead, you'd have the high int or high persuasion options appear only when your stat was high enough, and it looked exactly like all the other options. So you had to read each option and think about which one sounded the most convincing, rather than just defaulting to clicking the option tagged with [SPEECH].

Kinda like how in a pen and paper RPG you're supposed to play out the persuasion attempt by actually making up an argument that sounds halfway convincing. You don't just say "I try to persuade the guy" and roll.

 

[Egosphere]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed

There's similar stuff in Arcanum if my memory doesn't fail me: negotiations between Tarant and Caladon, Ashbury debates, diplomatic victory over end boss.

The same with Fallout, as far as I know. You can't just click on dialogue options mindlessly when having a conversation with the Master, you need to carefully read and choose the dialogue options. Also, you need that holodisk evidence of Super Mutants being sterile.

Fallout and Arcanum also didn't tell you which option is the "I WIN" button by tagging every skill check.

Instead, you'd have the high int or high persuasion options appear only when your stat was high enough, and it looked exactly like all the other options. So you had to read each option and think about which one sounded the most convincing, rather than just defaulting to clicking the option tagged with [SPEECH].

Kinda like how in a pen and paper RPG you're supposed to play out the persuasion attempt by actually making up an argument that sounds halfway convincing. You don't just say "I try to persuade the guy" and roll.

wasn't there a perk to highlight your speech options in different colours?

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[V_K]

Wrapping skillchecks in simple puzzles they way Quest for Glory games did is one option I'd like to see much more of.

 

[Master]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed

There's similar stuff in Arcanum if my memory doesn't fail me: negotiations between Tarant and Caladon, Ashbury debates, diplomatic victory over end boss.

The same with Fallout, as far as I know. You can't just click on dialogue options mindlessly when having a conversation with the Master, you need to carefully read and choose the dialogue options. Also, you need that holodisk evidence of Super Mutants being sterile.

Fallout and Arcanum also didn't tell you which option is the "I WIN" button by tagging every skill check.

Instead, you'd have the high int or high persuasion options appear only when your stat was high enough, and it looked exactly like all the other options. So you had to read each option and think about which one sounded the most convincing, rather than just defaulting to clicking the option tagged with [SPEECH].

Kinda like how in a pen and paper RPG you're supposed to play out the persuasion attempt by actually making up an argument that sounds halfway convincing. You don't just say "I try to persuade the guy" and roll.

wasn't there a perk to highlight your speech options in different colours?

Thats just FO1.

 

[Lemming42]

I've always had a problem with dialogue trees where the player has to pick the right option, because they're always either extremely obvious as to which answer is correct, or absolutely impossible and require you to read the writer's mind or agree with the writer's worldview.

The Master from Fallout is a good example of the first one. It does require you to read and think, but the correct path is so clear - especially because some of the other options are shit like "EXCUSE ME WHILE I GLOAT" and "YOU DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR ME!!! I'LL STOP YOU HERE!".

The biggest example that sticks in the mind of the second variety is talking that guy out of killing himself in Deus Ex Human Revolution. Putting aside the fact that I'm pretty sure the answers are randomised each game so there's some random luck involved anyway, every single option you get is reasonable, but only one specific path will work. The alpha/beta personality system crap the game gives you doesn't help at all.

That said, I can't think of any other way to involve the player actively in speech challenges, so...

 

[HarveyBirdman]

Making clever dialogue options as non-obvious as possible helps. Having a little [Speech 80] tag kinda ruins the ability for you to choose what you want to say opposed to what the game hands you.

PST presents special dialogue and normal dialogue as equally as possible.

 

[Yosharian]

I run skill checks this way in my PnP games:

1) I, the DM, call for skill checks, not you, the player
2) I'll call for a skill check when it's needed
3) Tell me what you want to do, rather than telling me 'I want to make a stealth check'

Hopefully this encourages my players to role-play first, and roll dice last.

What I see in most games these days is a skill check first, role-play last, approach. For example, if there's a Science check, it'll say [SCIENCE], and the player knows they can pick this if they have the science skill and it'll be a positive thing that will most likely solve the encounter. They don't even have to look at the dialogue, or the thing that the character is going to do. If there's any role-playing at all, it's secondary, because the player is primarily looking for that [SCIENCE] tag, and the actual dialogue is a secondary concern, if it's a concern at all.

Whereas what should happen is that players have a choice of actions or dialogues, and by following one that appeals to them, or picking intelligently, they might arrive at a skill check, which they can back out from and seek another approach if they wish.

For example, let's say you want to persuade an NPC to fuck you. A role-playing approach is to attempt to say the right thing to the NPC, based on what you know about them, or what you can find out through exploration or conversation. At the end of a successfully-navigated dialogue sequence where the player says the right thing, there's a check of some sort. Like, ok you said all the right words, now are you actually charming or buff enough for her to go 'ok let's fuck', or is she going to let you down lightly.

Whereas the braindead approach most games take nowadays is a simple yes/no binary check right at the start of conversations or encounters, which you either succeed or fail purely based on mechanics, there's no role-playing at all.

A good example of this can be seen in Fallout: New Vegas' final encounter with Legate Lanius, where you actually have to pick the right conversation choices and then spaced throughout the dialogue are actual Speech checks, but you still have to actually THINK about what you're saying, you can't mindlessly click through the dialogue.

 

[Black Angel]

There are instances in Bloodlines where after selecting a Persuasion option, you then had to follow a specific dialogue path to succeed

There's similar stuff in Arcanum if my memory doesn't fail me: negotiations between Tarant and Caladon, Ashbury debates, diplomatic victory over end boss.

The same with Fallout, as far as I know. You can't just click on dialogue options mindlessly when having a conversation with the Master, you need to carefully read and choose the dialogue options. Also, you need that holodisk evidence of Super Mutants being sterile.

Fallout and Arcanum also didn't tell you which option is the "I WIN" button by tagging every skill check.

Instead, you'd have the high int or high persuasion options appear only when your stat was high enough, and it looked exactly like all the other options. So you had to read each option and think about which one sounded the most convincing, rather than just defaulting to clicking the option tagged with [SPEECH].

Kinda like how in a pen and paper RPG you're supposed to play out the persuasion attempt by actually making up an argument that sounds halfway convincing. You don't just say "I try to persuade the guy" and roll.

wasn't there a perk to highlight your speech options in different colours?

Yes, Empathy. But, you need to sacrifice a precious perk point for it, and since I haven't actually paid attention if it actually highlight a speech-related dialogues, as per its description it only highlight dialogue options in different colors, which will incur either positive (blue options), negative (red), or no/neutral (green) reactions.

 

[JarlFrank]

For example, let's say you want to persuade an NPC to fuck you. A role-playing approach is to attempt to say the right thing to the NPC, based on what you know about them, or what you can find out through exploration or conversation. At the end of a successfully-navigated dialogue sequence where the player says the right thing, there's a check of some sort. Like, ok you said all the right words, now are you actually charming or buff enough for her to go 'ok let's fuck', or is she going to let you down lightly.

And for those people who claim "Yeah but then you have to guess which is the best line of dialogue choices", you can easily put clues into the world that tell you things about the character you're talking to.
Wanna seduce an NPC? Finding a lot of flowers in her garden hints you that she likes flowers, so initiating by gifting her flowers is a good idea. By sneaking into her bedroom and reading her diary, you find out more things she likes, which helps you decide which dialogue choices during the flirt are the most effective ones.

It can apply to other examples, too. Political - find blackmail material. Convincing some priest of something - read about the tenets of his religion first. Etc.

It's not blind guessing what the author thinks, as long as the author puts enough hints into the game.
Kinda like how a good novelist doesn't pull deus ex machinas, but sprinkles foreshadowing into the book so you have a slight clue about what's going to happen.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

By sneaking into her bedroom and reading her diary, you find out more things she likes,

 

[Carrion]

I like the Arcanum approach of high speech skill opening up new branches in dialogue trees that you still need to successfully navigate in order to persuade somebody.

The biggest example that sticks in the mind of the second variety is talking that guy out of killing himself in Deus Ex Human Revolution. Putting aside the fact that I'm pretty sure the answers are randomised each game so there's some random luck involved anyway, every single option you get is reasonable, but only one specific path will work. The alpha/beta personality system crap the game gives you doesn't help at all.

It's not random, there are just a couple of different variations for each conversation. The challenge usually lies not in what you say but how you say it, meaning that you need to read the NPCs reactions and decide whether to act sympathetic or outright crush them. There are several ways to do it, and you can even make a mistake and still salvage things by choosing your next words carefully.

I think the dialogue battles are one of the best things about the game. No actual skill checks involved there, though, except for the social aug which pretty much acts as an "I win" button.

 

[harhar!]

By sneaking into her bedroom and reading her diary, you find out more things she likes, which helps you decide which dialogue choices during the flirt are the most effective ones.

This is in fact how I handle my NPC romances IRL.

 

[V_K]

It's not blind guessing what the author thinks, as long as the author puts enough hints into the game.

Would be nice if you could name at least one game that does that though.