The New World design topic #3: Dialogue Checks

[Whisper]

I like old system.

 

[vazha]

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.
But in any case it still beats the old system.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your skill level increases positive reaction and reduce negative reaction, which is pretty much how it works in real life. Give 10 sales reps the same script (i.e. the same lines to say) and the results will be very different because the skillsets are different. What you say matters, of course, but how you say it matters more.

You sure of it? But they say same thing. So logically it shouldnt matter much how they say.

Give 10 people the same script (what to say in a conversation with a potential client) and you'll get very different results reflecting their skill level.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

 

[vazha]

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.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Shadenuat]

I think it's possible to pull the new system off. Aside from AoD's own achievement with Lorenza, Arcanum did this with Kerghan

Not just Kerghan it was all over the place, together with changes to NPC basic reaction value (as you repeatedly failed to persuade them their reaction would decrease, their circles going from green to yellow and they could even attack you; sometimes having high reaction from the beginning like being lady debutante with 20 Beauty gave you better lines right away, although very very rarely it happened).

The best examples are Ashbury mayor speech & of course diplomatic mission to Kaladon. Even Riztecce and Lukan seemed like they had more than just 1 check and you could fuck up once maybe by picking wrong line but did good if you picked more better lines. There was also dialogues with dwarf in waiting and real king. But Kaladon mission was one of the better ones.

And to make these sort of dialogues even better, you can add some information players learn in the game as a valid argument ("you say A, but dude on a street said to me B, shouldn't I get my C then?").

Together with actual speech skill game also checked your INT as well. There were particular thresholds I had to learn during solo pacifist run for Kerghan at least to even attempt that since I had to reach more than 18 INT and also Mastery of persuasion at least while skipping all xp from monsters and not die, which was hard but possible with a potion for some extra stats.

You may say - well, but VD has his own weird logic by which asassins just go around beating people up, wouldn't it be trouble to understand how his logic for persuasion works, just like Avellone re-loaded 3 times on Lukan near the bridge and still didn't understand what was happening?

Yes. But it's better to have some logic than none at all and bunch of i-win buttons. It makes you pay attention to what lines you pick, and try and understand what exactly writer thinks about his characters.

I believe these examples, where checks get modified in various ways and characters have personalities you have to "get" are the best thing that you can create with just dialogue trees, without actual complicated systems. But the problem is... it's something that is done wholly by hand. Every best immersive thing like this is always done by hand. Which means writing A LOT.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I beg your pardon, sirrah? Beggar yourself .

I meant no offense.

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?

It has nothing to do with your position but with the power dynamic.

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.

My point was that you have no arguments that might force him to make a decision because other than your hard work you have nothing to offer (which is a typical employee-employer relationship). For example, would your hard work result in a guaranteed promotion for your boss? Would you leaving put him in a very difficult position and threaten his job security? I'm guessing not. Plus many bosses tend to underestimate their employee's contribution and have their own bosses to answer to and explain their decisions in regard to their employees, so he isn't in a rush to prolong your stay.

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...

No, but they react. Not talking about some face reading shit, but normal human reaction. Dismissive gestures, looking disappointed, annoyed, interested, excited, attentive, etc. Not when dealing with an employee because it's a different game and a different relationship, but when dealing with someone making a proposition.

...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.

Of course. That's why you probe their position, looking for weak points. Nobody says yes or no, agree or disagree, but their reaction speaks for them.

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.

To study a very specific type of negotiations, the type of negotiations done by career bureaucrats who make decisions that rarely affect them directly. Dealing with people who are affected by their decisions is a very different game.

 

[azimuth]

I don't really like either system, but the new system sounds better than AoD's. Regardless, IMO you're making a roleplaying game where the character's persuasion skills (or whatever) should enable them to judge which response would work best, not a puzzle game where the player just tries to figure out your adventure game-like dialogue puzzle to solve the NPC.

The idea that "people will metagame, but that's your choice so not our concern" would seem to apply equally well to AoD's system, as simply mindlessly choosing the marked dialogue without engaging is also on the player. It's also an obvious design flaw, IMO, to have marked options always succeed.

I feel like there's a good middle ground there between "use your PC's skills to win the dialogue!!" and "crack the designer's devious dialogue puzzle." Your PC should be able to draw on their knowledge and skills but it need not be a guaranteed success. I would probably include a second subsystem that enables the PC to judge the potential outcomes of dialogue choices to some extent.

By the way, the point system is interesting but reminds me of Oblivion. (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Persuasion)

 

[Whisper]

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.

Why they hate Russia in EU?
Even USA is more friendly.

All this BS over Ukraine (why they care - its our province, was historically, let us sort this out - but no, you provoke "Ukraine is Europe BS" without really needing them, just to annoy Russia).

 

[Heretic]

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.

How about you try negotiating in situations where both parties' money is at stake instead of tax budgets from a faraway country.
Negotiate with the butcher about the price of sausages tomorrow and see how it compares to a negotiation with a career bureaucrat whose only interest is job and power self-preservation (just like yours in this situation).

 

[Momock]

Your skill level increases positive reaction and reduce negative reaction, which is pretty much how it works in real life. Give 10 sales reps the same script (i.e. the same lines to say) and the results will be very different because the skillsets are different. What you say matters, of course, but how you say it matters more.

So the social skills determine how you say things, not your ability to find the right words? (like in Fallout where you have new or extended dialogue options) I always assumed that Charisma was what should determine how you say the things that you come up with your skills. How does that new system work whith streetwise for example?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your skill level increases positive reaction and reduce negative reaction, which is pretty much how it works in real life. Give 10 sales reps the same script (i.e. the same lines to say) and the results will be very different because the skillsets are different. What you say matters, of course, but how you say it matters more.

So the social skills determine how you say things, not your ability to find the right words?

Pretty much.

I always assumed that Charisma was what should determine how you say the things that you come up with your skills.

Charisma is a modifier.

How does that new system work whith streetwise for example?

Same way as Persuasion. You can't con a person simply by saying the right words. You have to make him believe you. That's a skill.

 

[Momock]

Same way as Persuasion. You can't con a person simply by saying the right words. You have to make him believe you. That's a skill.

Okay, but shouldn't your streetwise level also determine if you can say the right words or not? (because this skill represents if you understand how things work in some "circles")

 

[PlanHex]

Same way as Persuasion. You can't con a person simply by saying the right words. You have to make him believe you. That's a skill.

Okay, but shouldn't your streetwise level also determine if you can say the right words or not? (because this skill represents if you understand how things work in some "circles")

But that already happened in AoD, with the skill checks that only show up if you pass a lore/streetwise/impersonation/etc check. You know, where the dialogue option has a green [lore success] next to it. Don't see any reason why those wouldn't work fine with the new system too.

 

[Momock]

What I'm trying to say (and that's just my opinion) is that those skills should cover not just how to say things but also what to say. But it's more work I guess.

 

[PlanHex]

What I'm trying to say (and that's just my opinion) is that those skills should cover not just how to say things but also what to say. But it's more work I guess.

So like the failure dialogues from Fallout New Vegas?

It's fun I guess, but probably very hard to not make it too obvious when you're not gonna pass the check. And probably easier to just have new dialogue options open up if your skill is high enough when it's appropriate.

 

[Zer0wing]

It would be fun to have failure check dialogs but without visible requirements.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Ok. I say the second definitely.

The thing is there might need to be a tell of some sort in the dialogue, in the descriptions, etc. that hint at what the better choice might be. For example, a character with a high enough perception might notice that this elderly man sitting outside on the street corner isn't just anyone based on how neighborhood thugs and everyone else shows him a level of respect. So, a character with a high perception might notice that, but if the speech skill isn't at the right level, when showing this guy respect it might come across as fawning praise or even ass kissing, and disgust the older man. So, it might take a sharp eye and a forked tongue to convince someone.

That requires a shitload of effort though.

You need a perception check, a speech check with the correct phrasing, and a reputation check to get the old man to acknowledge you in a meaningful way other than just smiling, saying hello, and telling you that you might want to talk to someone in the 'Harmonie Boys' social club if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Edit:

Asking about the man as well might cause problems for you. For example, he wouldn't confront you directly, but suddenly get a visit from a few local guys who tell you to get your business over with and leave the neighborhood as quickly as you can. It might automatically close a number of options for you until later on when you get a reputation of your own.

 

[Abu Antar]

I'd like to see thresholds for success but also have percentage based success. Let's say that you have 8/10 Streetwise. It should automatically allow you to use that skill and succeed against most people where the check makes sense. Some more important people won't be totally convinced. In that case, you have a XX% chance of success in dialog check. This skill check would obviously only work for the characters where a Streetwise check makes sense as I said.

Let's say that you only have 3/10 Diplomacy. It might automatically work against a few people, but most people won't be easily convinced by your honeyed words. You still have a minor percentage chance to convince some people, but basically no chance to convince bigger players in the story.

 

[hivemind]

In that case, you have a XX% chance of success in dialog check.

f9
f9
f9

random percentage chance to succeed at shit above your paygrade is really dumb imo, it basically ruins the game for anyone with ocd tendencies, please don't do this

 

[BlackAdderBG]

How is the 2nd system different exactly? You just added some complexity when the situation allows it, but when a combat skill like [crit] is used will you have multiple choices and how will that work exactly?

Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer. On the conceptual level I don't like it as it's weakening the character agency in favor of player's. It can be done properly, but it makes you do a lot more work writing and designing dialog.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

You sure of it? But they say same thing. So logically it shouldnt matter much how they say.

Give 10 people the same script (what to say in a conversation with a potential client) and you'll get very different results reflecting their skill level.

True, but a person with more persuasion, intelligence or streetwise would choose a different line. They are nor offered scripts by anyone when they are trying to convince someone.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How is the 2nd system different exactly?

It engages the player more and makes it easier to recover from making a mistake (in AoD you could do well and pass 3-4 checks, then fail the final check and 'lose' the conversation).

You just added some complexity when the situation allows it, but when a combat skill like [crit] is used will you have multiple choices and how will that work exactly?

The new system applies to dialogues only not actions text-adventure style.

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.

On the conceptual level I don't like it as it's weakening the character agency in favor of player's.

No more than controlling your character in combat does. You determine how to fight, which attacks to use and when, and the character's skills determine your success chance.

You sure of it? But they say same thing. So logically it shouldnt matter much how they say.

Give 10 people the same script (what to say in a conversation with a potential client) and you'll get very different results reflecting their skill level.

True, but a person with more persuasion, intelligence or streetwise would choose a different line. They are nor offered scripts by anyone when they are trying to convince someone.

In reality your options are very limited, so it is the skill that counts not the line. Sales isn't about the perfect pitch but about dealing with objections which are the same, which means the answers are more or less the same too. It's too expensive, not sure it's gonna work, tried it before, using something else now, need to think about it, etc. Basically, the client will attempt to disengage and end the conversation and your job is to keep him in the conversation. If the guy says it's too expensive, what are you gonna say? Some clever line showing your intelligence and deep thinking? He can afford it otherwise you wouldn't be talking to him, so it's a polite way of saying "I'm not sure", and there are only 3 good ways to handle it.

 

[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?