Joe Krow said:
My system heh? I'll take a crack. Let's see...
Maybe it's just me, but your description seems vague and up for numerous interpretations and various different systems of implentation.
Joe Krow said:
First of all, what you say and how you say it are two different things. What you say should be handled by the player. How the NPC feels about who's asking and the impact of the statements should be dependent on the character.
...
How and who is saying it- Every statement by the player should be filtered through his character. This could be done by selecting a demeanor or intent with each statement and then running it against the appropriate skill set (charisma for attempts to charm, intelligence for debate, strength for coercion, etc...).
a) You counter your own statement in the first paragraph, by allowing the player to select the intent under which he makes his statement. While intent/demeanor can and is easily attributed to skills and stats, neutral intent, which in some way has to be present in the dialogue system, overshadows all else and cannot readily be attributed to charisma, intimidation, speech, intelligence or any of the basic stats/skills relating to dialogue. Non-removable, it is either made inefficient for the benefit of the skill-based responses, thus making for an annoying dialogue system, or left at über, giving the player the illogical choice of using inferior skill-based responses only as a form of lrp/ removing these entirely.
Or,
b) Intent picked by the game, produced by whatever variables, random or logical, would work against the player in his freedom to choose how he handles the dialogue, in a way that pre-written responses does not.
Or,
c) A complicated system of flags for numerous game elements is set in the background, checking against possible NPC reactions and responses, in reality making the dialogue system no different than the linear dialogue system it tries to surpass.
Joe Krow said:
Keep in mind though that dialogue is only talk. It can be used to gather information, elicit support, etc., but it should never dictate the character's actions. Actions take place outside of dialogue and should be governed by the appropriate attributes.
What does this mean, specifically? That I am able to threaten a NPC to death without him taking to the defensive unless I actually draw first blood? Will NPC's never know what I'm doing, outside of dialogue? Speech is, afterall, attached to the gameworld in numerous ways in most decent RPG's, and by keeping it less free-form it is easier to solidify this attachment. Either one breaks from that route, and makes action separate from reception, or one increases the variables to an immense extent while still keeping the linear system in place.
Joe Krow said:
Whats said- to start I would create a simple vocabulary of maybe 40 keywords to build the foundation for interactions. NPC responses could be custom (for narrative or unique traits), randomized across all npcs (for trivial items), or specific to a template based on maybe 7-10 archetypal npcs (for factual or loosely personalized responses). The NPC can still ask the character a question but the response will not be binding on the players options going forward. Instead it will effect how that NPC regards the player. I admit this would be a fairly simple implementation but we have already moved dialogue off the flowchart and onto the spreadsheet (over by the combat). Every narrative you now enjoy in an rpg could still be told in this way but, because of its open format, this system would allow the player to go in new and interesting directions.
By the sound of it, we're talking about directions containing pockets of air. If the only consequence of specific NPC interaction is specific NPC response which only affects specific NPC interaction, all non-combat NPC interaction becomes a separate device relating only to itself; an add-on to the game, not actually part of the game.
Joe Krow said:
The response could be negative, neutral, or positive and would determine how the interaction progresses. Each would modify not only the immediate response but also the character's favoribilty with the NPC overall. This would dictate how willing they are to cooperate or "open up" to the PC.
But without any impact on game progression, as far as I've understood it.
Joe Krow said:
Factors like prejudice, deceit, faction and trust would effect your influence and open/close avenues of discussion to the player. For instance if you agree to do something and then do the opposite you have not failed to complete a quest in your journal, you have pissed off an NPC. That person is not going to offer you any more assistance or information.
But how would you measure prejudice, deceit, faction and trust? The cunning use of flags? Keeping the structure of the linear dialogue system?
Joe Krow said:
This system is bare bones but with some refining it would allow for real choice and keep the focus on the character. I admit it wouldn't be easy to implement. It might even take half as long as the combat system and a tenth of the time spent on shaders, still though, it would be a drastic improvement over dialogue trees.
How? It still seems to either relate to dialogue trees (only with the actual responses a choice exclusive to the player and his imagination) or a completely free-form system, in no relation to the actual gameworld.
Also, what about lines of dialogue specifically available to intelligent, observant or otherwise outstanding characters? Obviously the opportunity to get one over the average Joe, due to character skills/stats may still be present, but it will not be presented to the player in which case it'll often be overlooked entirely.
EDIT: The screenshot is a more clear representation, and likely adresses one or two of my points. Although some are left as is.
