Interview A Decadent Interview at RPG Dot

[GhanBuriGhan]

HAzelnut has a bit of a point I think. In P&P (at least the way we palyed it) asking the DM for an estimate on the difficulty of an action was a standard part of gaming. The DM of course would not give the numbers, but (sometimes after a roll against intelligence or somesuch) would give a general indication like "XYZ looks skeptical and you think he is intelligent - it will be hard to convince him".
However, I don't like the idea to have that info as a tag or worse % value with the dialogue as suggested. But what might be (have been) nice is a general appraisal feature that gives you some indication as to how smart, gullible, etc. your opponent is - and you should allready know what your skill levels are.

What would be nice though is to distinguish (if the case even exists) between dialogue that is simply there because you passed a skill threshold, and those that will include a further roll for a skill.

 

[Zomg]

Making judgements about how difficult social actions will be is part of the fun of dialogue. Think about conversing with Gizmo in Fallout - how do you know what tone to take to convince him of whatever? He's a slimy, venal character, so you take a tack that mirrors the same thing in your speech. The same approach won't work with a guy like Rhombus from the Brotherhood of Steel, and you glean that from the dialogue. You know just from context and tone that Rhombus can't be bribed, for instance.

 

[Claw]

But you're still assuming that it's always gonna be as simple as scan the list for the one that fits my PC archetype and choose that, regardless of the possiblity for there to be two (or more) avenues that fit.

No, I believe that the possibility of having more than one fitting avenue doesn't justify what you ask for in any way.

See, I want to be weighing up the different options, and possible success (based on PC stats) and consequences.

You should be able to do that without knowing your actual chance of success.

Not just choosing *steal* every single time because by char is a 1 dimentional thief who doesn't know how to do anything else, and steals to solve every problem.

So, what's your great playstyle then? Choosing *steal* every time it gives you the highest chance of success? Oh, that's deep then.

 

[galsiah]

You should be able to do that without knowing your actual chance of success.

Again, no-one is saying you know the actual chance of success.

I think it's a bad idea for the same reasons. If there is a percent chance then it should be kept secret; otherwise, you have too much knowledge and are using your head less.

But you don't need to see the chance of success (and I agree that you shouldn't), you'd be seeing your character's perception of the chance of success.

So long as the percentages make some sense (IE not much chance of talking the king out of his castle, but a good chance of convincing a stupid ogre you know where a treasure is) then you should take your cues from the situation at hand.

I agree that's reasonable, but Hazelnut is right to say that's a 100% player skill over character skill standpoint.

The presentation of the PC's perception of his chances needn't be in percentage terms either. It could simply be e.g. "(persuasion: seems risky)", or "(critical strike: seems straightforward)". [the "seems" might be redundant - I'm just emphasizing that it's perception, not fact.]

They can also be totally wrong, compared to the actual chance of success. For instance, take the following situation:

Critical strike attempt against NPC X.
Background facts:
(1) NPC X is old.
PC always notices (the NPC is not disguised / in the dark), so:
[chances seem higher] [actual chance is higher]

(2) NPC X has a concealed dagger, but no other weapon.
If PC knows (previous info), or notices (some hard "perception" check):
[chances seem a little lower] [actual chance is a little lower]
If PC doesn't notice:
[chances seem higher] [actual chance is much lower]

(3) NPC X is a retired assassin.
If PC knows (previous info), or notices (knowledge of assassins and hard "perception" check):
[chances seem lower, effect of (2) is reduced if weapon wasn't seen] [actual chance is lower]
If PC doesn't notice:
[chances seem the same] [actual chance is much lower]

(4) NPC X doesn't trust the PC.
If the PC knows (previous info), or notices (passes some "perception" check):
[chances seem lower] [actual chances are lower]
If PC doesn't notice:
[chances seem the same] [actual chance is much lower]

Depending on the amount the PC knows, any prediction might be either accurate, or way off. If the PC doesn't notice anything, he thinks he's critical striking some old, unarmed guy. If he knows / notices everything, he thinks he's critical striking an experienced assassin with a concealed weapon, who doesn't trust him.

Perhaps you'd say that the player ought to be told / notice the factors, and do the calculation himself. I wouldn't object to that, but there's still some advantage in having the game do the calculation: some characters probably ought to know whether it's harder to critical strike an experienced figher who trusts you, or a less experienced one who doesn't. Do you know that? No - it's an essentially arbitrary mechanic, where either case makes reasonable sense.

Perhaps it would be more satisfying for a player to be presented with the facts - at the time his character notices them -, rather than have the calculation done for him.

For instance, with the above example, say the player has learned previously that NPC X is an assassin, and that he doesn't trust the PC. The player wouldn't be told either of these things at the time of the check. Rather he'd be told everything he notices directly.

So say the PC fails to notice the dagger, notices directly (knowledge + easier check, since PC is expecting it) that the guy is an assassin, but fails to see any lack of trust (in spite of an easier check).
The player could hover over the <critical strike> text, and see:
He's an old guy and appears to be unarmed.
<insert game world telltale signs here> lead you to believe he might be an assassin.

The player wouldn't get told anything he'd previously discovered - e.g. that the guy doesn't trust him - unless the PC observes it directly. Since first of all that might not be true (perhaps the information the PC received was false), and second, it's more satisfying for the player to remember things himself rather than have them signposted.

Another issue is whether the player should be told these things only when he's thinking of critical striking. Should he be able to appraise the guy for the above info anyway. I'm not sure on this. In one sense, it's not fair to the player only to give the information when the critical strike is being considered: perhaps it might be useful information for the player to know - why shouldn't he be able to check for it even if the option to critical strike doesn't come up in his dialogues?

On the other hand, when would the PC assess his chances of success? Almost certainly when he's thinking of critical striking. Not giving the info on the dialogue screen would mean it made sense for a player to check over every aspect of everyone he met before talking to them, just in case <skill check ???> came up in dialogue. The natural time for the PC and the player to look for info and assess the chance of success, is when they consider performing the action - i.e. in the dialogue.

It might make sense to give the player the opportunity to get the info either way - e.g. an appraisal will tell him:
He's an old guy and appears to be unarmed.
<insert game world telltale signs here> lead you to believe he might be an assassin.
But so will hovering over the <critical strike> check text.

However, if there are many types of stat check (and there are), and many possible factors influencing perceived and actual success (and there would be), appraising any NPC would probably get you a few pages of text. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, but it might seem a little odd(??).

Anyway, we can all agree it'd be a lot of work to do well, whichever approach were used. It'll have to be for AoD2.

 

[MountainWest]

Leaving the blessed land of verbosity for a minute, I read somewhere (perhaps in this thread) that skillpoints would be awarded at the completion of a quest - much like bloodlines, I presume. Furthermore: the amount of points would vary according to how you solved the quest.

*spoiler* I was playing Bloodlines the other day, doing Fat Larrys Traffik-quest. To my knowledge there's two ways I could have solved that quest. 1) Killed the bad guys and taken the bag. 2) Sneaked through the ventilation shafts, not letting anyone see me doing it and taken the bag. The second option gives more skillpoints. Problem is, theres no way to know that before you've actually done it, since sneaking doesn't always award more skillpoints. And you could argue whats harder. I thought sneaking was easier.

Should the player try his way through the quest and guess what the developer thought was the best way to solve it? Should I stop beeing such a fucking power gamer and just play through the quests and be happy with the amount of points I get at the end, thus eliminating the reason to award extra points for solving the quest in a good way?

I'm thinking you always should be given a hint of what's the better way. For example, Fat Larry could have said that he wanted the bag brought to him anyways possible,but preferable in a discret manner (come to think of it, maybe he did). Anyway, how's this handled in AoD?

 

[bryce777]

if there is a clue, it should be a contextual clue. IE if you talk to a 'sharp-eyed mountebank' then you would be crazy to try and swindle him unless you are Raffles, but talk to a 'slack jawed yokel' or 'the town drunk' then putting one over on him might be pretty easy.

 

[jeansberg]

Leaving the blessed land of verbosity for a minute, I read somewhere (perhaps in this thread) that skillpoints would be awarded at the completion of a quest - much like bloodlines, I presume. Furthermore: the amount of points would vary according to how you solved the quest.

*spoiler* I was playing Bloodlines the other day, doing Fat Larrys Traffik-quest. To my knowledge there's two ways I could have solved that quest. 1) Killed the bad guys and taken the bag. 2) Sneaked through the ventilation shafts, not letting anyone see me doing it and taken the bag. The second option gives more skillpoints. Problem is, theres no way to know that before you've actually done it, since sneaking doesn't always award more skillpoints. And you could argue whats harder. I thought sneaking was easier.

Should the player try his way through the quest and guess what the developer thought was the best way to solve it? Should I stop beeing such a fucking power gamer and just play through the quests and be happy with the amount of points I get at the end, thus eliminating the reason to award extra points for solving the quest in a good way?

I'm thinking you always should be given a hint of what's the better way. For example, Fat Larry could have said that he wanted the bag brought to him anyways possible,but preferable in a discret manner (come to think of it, maybe he did). Anyway, how's this handled in AoD?

I'm not sure, but i get the feeling that you always get the same amount of experience for fulfilling the end objective, regardless of the path.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Anyway, how's this handled in AoD?

There are no better ways, i.e. you get the same amount of skill points for sneaking or for killing. However, if the average work you can do is 100%, doing 80% would get you less, and doing 120% would get you more.

See this quest structure for details (it was my inspiration):
http://www.zero-sum.com/walkthrough/vaunisChild.html

 

[galsiah]

EDIT2: Idiocy below, left for clarity******************************
EDIT: It seems this entire discussion has been based on a completely untrue assumption:
That seeing [Persuasion] means a persuasion check will take place when you choose the option.

Apparently (2005) that's not true at all. Seeing [Persuasion] just means that line has appeared due to your persuasion skill level. The following (and the above) pretty much entirely misses the point. Oh well.
I'm not sure what I think of this - it seems a little strange on the face of it.
EDIT2: End idiocy *******************************************

if there is a clue, it should be a contextual clue. IE if you talk to a 'sharp-eyed mountebank' then you would be crazy to try and swindle him unless you are Raffles, but talk to a 'slack jawed yokel' or 'the town drunk' then putting one over on him might be pretty easy.

Sure, but there are many more possible dialogue checks than persuasion, and many more reasons for it to be easy / hard than the level of intelligence / savvy of the target.
For example, all these are checked in screens we've seen:
persuasion, streetwise, trading, etiquette, lore, stealing, critical strike.

Any other skill could also be checked - e.g. an <insert weapon here> check might be required to show that you knew how to handle yourself in a fight. This could reasonably be easier when the NPC is no fighter himself...

To avoid having a load of cookie cutter, stereo-typical characters, you'd need to give information covering all possible checks - since not all yokels are the same (and I doubt AoD is full of yokels and drunks in any case). You'd need to make sure not to say anything too obvious either, since the idea is to have the player work things out.

You might well end up talking to a:
'tall, boney, perfumed, big nosed, balding, squint-eyed fellow with worn hands, a pale complexion, various tatoos - one misspelled, another of a dog -, a copper lizard-shaped earring, a gold tooth, a dark green shirt patched in several places, dark pants, a thin belt with a mat black buckle, a small leather pouch, a sheathed sturdy dagger, high quality well worn boots with traces of mud on them, who's smiling ever so slightly, humming an unusual folk tune usually heard in Southern inns under his breath, looking to his left - into the light - every few seconds but leaning to his right, tapping his left foot out of rhythm with his humming, holding his weight on his right leg, his right palm downwards, tossing and catching a gold coin in his left hand'

Now I don't think there's much wrong with the above (the amount, not the content), but it's a bit much to have that flash up as soon as you hover the mouse over an NPC. It's also quite a lot to expect the player to remember it all, and it's implications, before knowing what dialogue check will come up. The NPC might also say something during dialogue which doesn't add up. Should the player be required to remember every detail before starting the conversation? I'd say not.

If the above NPC maintained that he was a lore-master who worked in a library to the North, it's reasonable to think the player might doubt him. If he maintained that he was a farm worker from the south, is the player going to think "pale complexion... high quality boots... that's odd"? Only if he's very careful to absorb all such information for every NPC he speaks to.

Pretty much any of the above information could provide useful clues as to the NPC's past/occupation, as well as his current situation. All this can help give an indication of chance of success with various checks, as well as the credibility of the NPC's statements.

If player skill were used to determine the information provided, I think the same information should then be available in or out of dialogue. I don't see what's wrong with filtering the information presented according to PC perception or knowledge. This doesn't mean signposting necessarily. For instance, say the PC has learned that a copper earring in the shape of a lizard is the sign of membership of some organization. There's no need to say:
"He has a copper, lizard shaped earring - this means he's an ..."
You only need to say:
"He has a copper, lizard shaped earring."

This will be one of many items in the description, but will be much more likely to be present if the PC has a reason to notice it, and more likely the higher his relevant stats (preception / streetwise...). The player still needs to remember any significance, so he gets the satisfaction of putting two and two together (if he remembers). A PC with low stats might not notice the earring, even if he knew of its significance.

Anyway, I think a player skill / character skill balance is possible here, and probably desirable. Still a lot of work though.

 

[bryce777]

My example was just a simplification. I don't think you would necessarily say things like that - though you definitely could. I would think some characters would be stand out more than others. Those examples are fine but I assume usually it will be more subtle.

Someone's job, for one thing, should be a clue to someone.

As for the checks, you are going onto a red herring. If there is a check at all or a chance for failure, that's what matters - unless I am wrong and just having the dialog there means it works, which would heartily suck.

 

[Hazelnut]

EDIT: It seems this entire discussion has been based on a completely untrue assumption:
That seeing [Persuasion] means a persuasion check will take place when you choose the option.

Apparently (2005) that's not true at all. Seeing [Persuasion] just means that line has appeared due to your persuasion skill level. The following (and the above) pretty much entirely misses the point. Oh well.

That's what I thought all along. I'm not quite sure why you're so surprised.. and I certainly don't think it means that what we've been discussing is misses the point. You get the option because you have enough skill to attempt the action. Since it's not a dead cert that you'll be successful, it seems reasonable for the player to have some feedback from the PC based on abilities and skills as to the chance of success as they see it in the given situation as they know it, rather than relying on the players read of all these factors / skill at thinking like the designer(s). There would still be decisions to be made - more so due to more information from the game I believe.

It all started because I was curious as to why VD seemed to think that no feedback was the ideal situation RP design wise. He may or may not answer, but I think that if anyone wants to continue the discussion, which doesn't really apply to AoD since it'd be mad to try and shoe horn it in at this stage with the downsides if it doesn't work well, then a new thread should be started.

I'm totally happy with the way it's gonna be and I'm really anticipating playing the game whenever it's ready.

 

[Vault Dweller]

He may or may not answer...

I will answer, but I'm too busy at the moment. No time at all.

 

[elander_]

This is a complex subject and there are many ways to handle this subject and some god ones have already been mentioned here like taking info from the context whenever possible. In combat it doesn't seam to be much of a problem to show percent chances before shooting someone. Dialog is different. This could be done with an appraisal action that is automaticaly used right before dialog showing a message in the small text window "you are looking at a sharp person with a strong physical presence". Or for example after using persuasion the small text window would show something like "this guy is hard to convince".

The typical examine action was present in Fallout (by pressing the rmb on a critter to bring the menu with an examine action or was it look at) could provide extra clues by echoing some description on the text window. This worked quite well for npcs in Fallout sometimes. The game also had the talking heads that would express facial emotions and gave extra clues to the player about what dialog choices to make. The talking heads displaying emotions was very important for dialog sometimes.

I have to say that im not a great adept of revealing everything like in NWN text logs for example. I think this must be done in context. But a character with an high skill in persuasion for example should be able to assert something about whats going to happen and that this info may not reflect what realy is going to happen. Perhaps this could be shown with a message "this guy is harder to convice than it looks" after persuasion is tried instead of having a tag like [Persuasion easy].

 

[jeansberg]

Or for example after using persuasion the small text window would show something like "this guy is hard to convince".

That would be like a window into the mind of the character. A very interesting idea.

 

[bryce777]

I would think the higher your perception, the more clues you might get, but these should be automatic parts of the person's description, not handwritten notes from your mother.

 

[galsiah]

That's what I thought all along. I'm not quite sure why you're so surprised.. and I certainly don't think it means that what we've been discussing is misses the point.

Ah - for some reason I was presuming that the check was only for the appearance of the dialogue option. I thought VD meant that once the dialogue option appeared (through a check), the result of that option did not depend at all on player skill.
That's probably stupid though - which is why it struck me as odd.

In that case what we've been discussing does make sense, but I still think that any simple solution (e.g. showing approximate actual success chance) would not be good. A complex solution might work, but it'd be tricky.

EDIT:
@bryce777 agreed. As I said above, you should notice more (either due to skill, knowledge, or some combination), but the significance of what you notice should be yours to deduce. You should also notice some things which aren't (or at least might not be) relevant. It's a bit silly if you know that every piece of information you see has relevance to the current quest.

 

[Hazelnut]

He may or may not answer...

I will answer, but I'm too busy at the moment. No time at all.

Thats cool, whenever is fine. I'll only remind ya after you release AoD!

 

[elander_]

I would think the higher your perception, the more clues you might get, but these should be automatic parts of the person's description, not handwritten notes from your mother.

Of course, like i said before in my huge post, dialog must be part of the gameplay and the player must be capable of deducing or infering info from what he reads and act acordingly. What you say is possible to do when when we have plenty of dialog lines to explore with a character but this may not be allways possible. We can add extra dialog lines to know the character better. For example what is your name and what do you do around here and then trying to make the character say something about himself with a charisma check. If it fails the characters answer may hint why. MCA explores this stuff in his games and can show a character strong and weak points very well.

However there are situations when we can't put too much dialog lines in a character. The guy in VD quest example is one of them. You are dealing with a guy that will probably restrict his answers to the essential to be cautious with you. So you won't have too much material to infere anything from his speach. It's natural that persuasion should be a shot in the dark in this case. But as a trained diplomat you can assert something about his state of mind just by looking at his facial expression or posture or listening to his tone of voice or how it pronounces his sentences. Something you can't see in this game interface but your character would be able to see. In this case a message would appear in the messages window but not something that would look like the game was nursing you and giving you info for free but something like "with your high diplomatic experience you notice this character is not very confident from the tone of his voice". Then you conclude whatever you want. This guy has nothing to fear from yiu so maybe he wants to hide something and he is not very good at it.

 

[galsiah]

In this case a message would appear in the messages window but not something that would look like the game was nursing you and giving you info for free but something like "with your high diplomatic experience you notice this character is not very confident from the tone of his voice". Then you conclude whatever you want.

I think I'd still prefer something more descriptive than deductive - so the PC does the noticing, and the player does the calculation.

For instance "lack of confidence" is not something the PC observes directly, but a deduction from various clues: perhaps the NPC keeps looking away, perhaps he fidgets, perhaps he pauses slightly and almost frowns every so often. If you're using tone of voice, I'd rather have a desription of the character's speech the player can pick up on - is it apologetic, pleading, disjointed, faltering, inappropriately loud...?

I'd prefer the player to be told what the PC observes, not what he concludes from it. However, the player would only get observations that the PC deemed noteworthy. A PC with high etiquette would notice things that other characters wouldn't, as would a streetwise / perceptive / intelligent / learned character...

I also think that it would be possible to cover a wider range of situations by giving direct observations, rather than conclusions (though it might be more work). For instance, the examples I gave above (and others) might lead to subtly different player conclusions. Giving a subtle conclusion directly would seem like hand-holding.

I think this is particularly relevant for a game like AoD, where each situation would be fairly unique - since there are no randomly generated quests. If you have randomly generated quests / NPCs with generic dialogues, you need a fairly generic "lack of confidence" option. Where you're dealing with a unique NPC in a unique situation, you have an opportunity to give the player precise information about that NPC in that particular situation. It seems unfortunate to waste it with a generic conclusion which is both less precise and less colourful.

I guess you could say that getting a direct description is still using only player skill. I don't think that's true if character skill has been used to select the descriptions the player sees: the player immediately knows that any information he gets is likely to be important. The PC has done most of the hard work - noticing and identifying the information as important. All the player needs to do is to interpret it. Hopefully this gives the player a sense of achievement, as well as the satisfaction that his character's skill came in useful.

 

[Spazmo]

I disagree. The interpretation of whatever signs the PC picks up is a core part of the skill. The game might tell me the other guy's fidgeting (and BTW I'm not sure why an etiquette-ful guy spots this when it's a perception thing), but that might be because he's nervous and lying (streetwise to see through his bullshit), or because he's impatient and annoyed at you (intimidate to show him you are Biggus Dickus). And there's also the question of whether or not the designer agrees with the player on what a given physical sign is. If the game outlines some kind of system for it--any instance of fidgeting directly implies that a streetwise check would reveal something--then you're basically back to square one, but with a different label on it. And even after you've managed to spot whatever sign, then what? In the PC's dialog options, do you have all the speech skills present and the player has to decide which one is relevant or do you only have the ones the PC has or what?

What might work, however, is that the NPC dialog would play out as normal, but then in the list of PC reply options, instead of "[Intimidate] 'gimme ur gold faget'", you'd get "You notice that Caius is twitchy and is starting to sweat a little bit and you flex a muscle to intimidate him. 'gimme ur gold faget,' you say." I'm pretty sure this is how PST did it. If you had the required stat for a given dialog option, it'd just appear. That said, PST had a kind of unintentional clue system where the response with the greatest number of words was probably the best one to choose.

 

[galsiah]

First, I'm not suggesting these pieces of information have anything directly to do with dialogue checks. I'm suggesting that the player can appraise an NPC outside of dialogue to get such results, and can appraise from within dialogue too. Some information (e.g. the way something is spoken / a mannerism adopted while speaking) might only be available within the dialogue, of course, but I'm not suggesting they have any direct connection to player responses (checked or otherwise). I'm only thinking of it as a means to provide the player with information.

...and BTW I'm not sure why an etiquette-ful guy spots this when it's a perception thing...

I never said he did - I just mentioned etiquette first. I didn't mean to make any connection to the previous paragraph.

I disagree. The interpretation of whatever signs the PC picks up is a core part of the skill.

Sure, which is why my suggestion is part player skill, part character skill. If all the interpretation is done, then you've got 100% character skill. That's ok, but I don't think it'd work as well. I'm not totally convinced of this - feel free to convince me otherwise -, but I think that giving the interpretation is too much hand-holding.

The game might tell me the other guy's fidgeting , but that might be because he's nervous and lying (streetwise to see through his bullshit), or because he's impatient and annoyed at you (intimidate to show him you are Biggus Dickus).

I think you could indicate this through the description, without needing to provide an interpretation.
E.g. "He slowly drums his fingers, staring directly at you with a slight frown." says impatient and annoyed (I'm no writer, so perhaps it could be better).
"He keeps pulling on the cuffs of his shirt, glancing quickly around the room, then meeting your gaze while tapping his fingers rapidly." is more nervous.

Personally I don't like the idea of a skill telling you that an NPC is lying, because no-one can know that. A perceptive, streetwise etc. character can know that the NPC is acting as if he were lying, but he can't know that he's lying - there are many reasons for someone to act nervous / agitated / over-confident... that he's lying is just one possibility - however skilled the observer.

That's why text saying "NPC X seems to be lying" (or equivalent) comes across as hand-holding: the game designer knows he's lying, but a real character couldn't draw that conclusion. A real character would see the various traits in his behaviour, then draw possible conclusions from there. As soon as you give the player one solution you turn a natural situation into a contrived one.
You could present the player with a range of possible conclusions, but that would seem quite odd I think.

And there's also the question of whether or not the designer agrees with the player on what a given physical sign is. If the game outlines some kind of system for it--any instance of fidgeting directly implies that a streetwise check would reveal something--then you're basically back to square one, but with a different label on it.

But you don't need any system because you'd be doing it on a case by case basis (quite a bit of work, granted). There is no need for any "fidgeting = streetwise" rule. A designer can match an appropriate description for that particular situation to an appropriate skill - which will always be somewhat arbitrary, but then any system would be.

And even after you've managed to spot whatever sign, then what? In the PC's dialog options, do you have all the speech skills present and the player has to decide which one is relevant or do you only have the ones the PC has or what?

I'd think of this separately from the dialogue - it just allows the PC to notice things, and for the player to draw conclusions. What he does with that knowledge is a separate issue.
As to how it would work, I think it would be passive. Deciding to use one skill rather than another wouldn't make much sense, and if there's an option to use them all, it might as well be automatic.

In dialogue mode, skill checks could just add lines of description after the NPC speaks. Perhaps there might occasionally be extra dialogue options as a direct result, but that's not necessary. The aim is just to give the player more information on which to base his decisions - not necessarily to provide more options (not always anyway). I'm not sure whether it'd be a good idea to tell the player why he noticed something...

This sort of thing might look a bit odd:
You notice that Caius is twitchy and is starting to sweat a little bit. [perception]/[streetwise]
His hand is on the hilt of his sword, but not in a position to draw it quickly. [sword]
...

What might work, however, is that the NPC dialog would play out as normal, but then in the list of PC reply options, instead of "[Intimidate] 'gimme ur gold faget'", you'd get "You notice that Caius is twitchy and is starting to sweat a little bit and you flex a muscle to intimidate him. 'gimme ur gold faget,' you say."

I think I'd prefer the description kept separate from the replies. Putting the description in the reply would seem to imply that you only notice the twitchiness / sweatiness if you choose that response - which doesn't seem right.

That said, PST had a kind of unintentional clue system where the response with the greatest number of words was probably the best one to choose.

Usually that was true, but not always (as I'm sure you're aware). In any case, I think VD is aiming for more options than PS:T - the "best" option will probably (hopefully) depend on the player's aims.

 

[bryce777]

The problem with pst and fallout was that it was always obvious what to choose. So, it's no longer gameplay at all, just watching a movie. If people are too stupid to figure it out, fuck them.

Also, the idea should be that things like threatening people should always be a risk so that you don't just do shit like that lightly any more than you would ransack all the shelves of every store.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

I dunno. In PST and Fallout, it was obvious what to choose depending on how I was roleplaying - which is an excellent quality. So, if I was a persuasive talker, it was obvious what to choose, but if I was someone who wanted to let my fists do the talking, the games accomodated that. The challenge I feel is games rewarding whatever path you choose appropriately, so that none of the options feel like they're tacked on.

 

[galsiah]

Well that just means that all character types are viable - which is a very important first step. For there to be depth to each type of character, you need a range of appropriate options and strategies. Providing one reasonable option for diplomatic types would be like providing one weapon for combat types - i.e. offering the possibility to go down that path, but no options / depth.

There is much to be hoped for AoD in this department simply because the player may be loyal to a number of different organizations (or combinations). Even if it is clear which option he should take in order to achieve some goal (though hopefully it won't be), it might not be at all clear what he wants to achieve.
There wasn't much inter-organization conflict in PS:T, and in Fallout it was mostly gangs of outlaws vs. law and order. With luck things won't be so clearly defined in AoD, so that it's actually hard to decide what to aim for.

The most interesting stories are those where characters are presented with tough situations where you're not sure how they'll act, or they surprise you - even though you thought you knew them. Roleplaying should ideally be similar - not just going through the motions, choosing the options your character would, but rather being faced with tough choices where you might act in various ways. How you act (re)defines your character, so that roleplaying is a discovery, rather than a series of reflex actions according to a previous choice. If the choice you should make is always clear, then you're missing out on this. That's not great design.

 

[bryce777]

I dunno. In PST and Fallout, it was obvious what to choose depending on how I was roleplaying - which is an excellent quality. So, if I was a persuasive talker, it was obvious what to choose, but if I was someone who wanted to let my fists do the talking, the games accomodated that. The challenge I feel is games rewarding whatever path you choose appropriately, so that none of the options feel like they're tacked on.

Allowing you to choose what movie to watch, but not giving any meaningful interaction.