Are the paradigms of role-playing outdated?

[dagorkan]

Two comments:

1/

This is an example of where cRPG developers have failed to distance themselves from the probability and randomization necessities of the original medium. While role-playing has evolved into a form of collaborative and reactive story-telling based on social network layers, computer role-playing game are still busy trying to copy and tweak the statistical and combative elements that permeated the genre in its humble foundations. The dungeon crawling mentality of the old days still applies - after a trifling gain of experience points, you are suddenly able to improve whatever value you want on a character's spreadsheet. And the character that has been making a living stomping on sewer rats for the past weeks is now suddenly able to do something completely different such as discussing quantum mechanics, quoting the works of Rimbaud or find the cure for cancer.

I think this is more a problem of the D&D-influence in roleplaying games than anything else. The idea that levels, gained through experience, which is gained the same way for every character type allows you to increase your abilities in any way regardless of character type. You could also have a roleplaying system not based on the gamist idea levels but on more realistic mechanics.

TES is one, dumbed-down pretty stupid example - you increase stats by using them. Another would be more attribute specific and you could for example, improve strength by having your character choose an option by doing physical exercise every evening during a week long journey to another city to which you need to travel to continue a quest. Alternatively you could use that 'free time slot' to increase Knowledge: politics of Ascaron (giving you an advantage in later quests related to Ascaron), or Knowledge: Ion technology (giving you the price/information advantage when purchasing the Ion Repeater Rifle).

The choice to increase your abilities does not necessarily have to be 'free' - you could for example as a royal knight have been given a quest to protect the Emperor's young son after the assassination of the Emperor in an aborted coup. Initially you discover a potential lead to the killer and plotters, but which would require you to travel to another realm, but which would require you to leave the prince behind, or you could ignore it and stay in the palace, trying to find what information you can there, keeping an eye on various factions and training the prince's bodyguards over a period of weeks or months (not a typical RPG scenario I admit) - waiting for the enemy to make the next move. If you stayed behind you'd have time on your hands could befriend the Imperial mage learning the fundamentals of High sorcery, which could later be of use in preventing another assassination - knowledge which could never have been gained if you'd chosen the other plot branch.

Chargen could be treated the same way. Roll your basic stats the normal way, getting stats for very general fundamental attributes, Intellect, Dexterity, Reflexes, Presence which describe the potential of your character - sort of like your genetics, your limits and how difficult or easy it is to improve abilities of different kinds through other mechanics. These are then modified by your choices, before the game starts and during the game.

You are then presented with a (possibly randomized) series of events or situations in the period from to childhood until the game starts which modify skills and current attribute levels. Choose to be a bookworm or get into fights would be an obvious example, a more useful dilemma would be how to respond to your little brother being bullied by a gang of older kids, who stole a toy made for him by your deceased carpenter father.

Either:

1/ simply don't get involved (no stat gains, but faction reputation gain, or an advantage with one quest-related NPC later in the game),
2/ confront the bullies directly and demand its return (stat check vs current presence/intellect, chance of getting beaten up, gain enemies, but gain dialog bonus in 'stand-off' type situations),
3/ persuade them to return it, appealing to their conscience (same, but gain a different kind of persuasion bonus),
4/ threaten/lie to get it's return (telling them an older kid the bullies are afraid is your friend, intimidate/bluff gain, rep changes),
5/ covertly steal the item back, covertly steal the item back and steal something precious to the bully (gain in 'vindictiveness' trait),
6/ wait to get one of the bullies alone and beat him half to death, and either lie or boast about it (morality/rep/skill changes as appropriate)
7/ get back by bullying one of the bullies' younger brother (negative reps)
8/ or confront the whole group take them all on at the same time (major rep gain, whether you succeed or not, but chance of gaining a permanent injury)

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Pay attention to any hype?

If you’ve got any factual evidence that my argument is a pro-immersion stance (other than your skewered perception of what I wrote) or that less statistics translate into such (other than your own interpretation of what the genre has to be on electronic format), feel free to point it out. Otherwise, you can drop the bullshit about how game mechanics must adhere to some code only you seem to be clued on.

Not if it isn't mechanically driven.

Which it is since the proposed system works on very clear game mechanics of choice and consequence. Unless your version of “game mechanics” unsurprisingly doesn’t contemplate anything that might include my example.

Choosing from a dialog tree without any statistical impacts is not RPG design.

I guess Fallout isn’t an RPG. Or maybe it’s half of one, or just one when stat checks are made.

The way the player interacts with the world that uses reward systems and currency (interactions with risk and reward moderated by player input). The player is using preset rules that could be previously modified, not picking from a list with no costs. Picking to save a kid or not doesn't involve rules (action games can do this choice), if the choice is tried to stats likes values/alignment etc.. the choice is effecting the rules and makes it a deeper decision.

Stop being a disingenuous twat. Again, this in no way contradicts my suggestions. Coming up with contrived specifics for your definition just to simply oppose my own doesn’t make your case. An example of this is how you argue that “rules” can only involve statistics when they obviously don’t, since a rule is a defining statement that governs a system and this isn’t exclusively tied down to numbers. Dialogue choices that impact the gameworld or that can only be accessed depending on past choices are (or can be) the rules of a game, and as such part of its ruleset. Let me guess, you have a definition of rule that curiously avoids what the term means?

No it isn't if it isn't done mechanically, that is why action games can track actions and adjust dialog (even play "The Suffering"?).

“Mechanically driven” means something is being driven by the use of mechanics. Dialogue is a mechanic. This isn’t up for discussion unless you want to bitch about something simply because you disagree with it and can’t find a way to win the argument.

D&D combat would be more Role-Playing then dialog trees in Starcraft 2.

D&D combat was designed for gameplay, not designed for role-playing. That some role-play in D&D combat doesn’t tell anything about the system, just as using one’s imagination in Oblivion doesn’t say anything about its choices and consequences (or lack thereof).

you can't assume all RPG rulesets have to be similar.

Just as you can’t assume all RPG rulesets have to adhere to the conventions you enjoy simply because you enjoy them or lead yourself to believe they are defining of the genre.

Your opinion has no bearing about how flawed they are if they serve their purpose.

Except they don’t.

That is a pretty limited view of RPG design.

Irony.

A social behavior could be given a value and used in play instead of existing only in words and imagination.

Social behavior in my example is given a value and is used in gameplay. What it doesn’t do is use a numerical value. Which is probably why you’re so keen on dumbing it down to “imagination”.

Optimally talking would either aid in exploring the world/effect the world (and to effect the world in a simulated fashion you would variables of success), be a chance to be challenged, or pose mechanically driven moral choices.

All of which my suggestion already covers. Just because you repeatedly misinterpret my argument and keep assuming some statistical value associated with dialogue at all times is what creates these possibilities doesn’t make it correct.

I don't see much you would get out of trying to have the game reflect your character's personality for its own sake.

Something tells me that’s not the only thing you don’t see.

So what are you arguing for, a list of skills instead of CHA and INT that serve the same function?

Skills would be a possibility, but not the only one. I’d prefer to use other methods for character awareness and limitations of self in terms of intellectual and social structures.

Why not have the other means just effect the stat. Giving the player a situation that could raise or lower is CHA (knowing that effects dialog in many locations) makes it a tougher choice then if the situation vaguely impacts a hidden if statement somewhere.

How is it a tougher choice to know exactly what CHA value you need to have to accomplish some interaction? Also, both systems are IF statements – don’t bother saying otherwise.

Where did the number come from?

Probably from the notion that we need to impose a mechanic constructed to stop arguments between the players and the Dungeon Master on every variation of the genre.

I think its funny you even pre-assume CHA and INT are somehow require statistics just because D&D has them

I think it’s funny too, specially because I wasn’t talking about D&D at all. In fact, you were the first one to bring it into the discussion.

and use that to imply that non-mechanical decisions are better because CHA and INT are dumb.

I never said they were dumb – just terribly contrived at what they are trying to do.

You should start thinking how dialog could use player skill and decisions WITH a ruleset, not cutting it out from RPG design. Combat uses mechanics that can be challenging and uses player input, why not dialog?

Ok, here comes the last cluetrain, better make a run for it: a ruleset is defined by a system’s rules and their applications. If you want to make some case about how your idea is different than mine then use a term that actually sets them apart instead of coming off as a douche by implying a ruleset is not a ruleset because it’s not using statistical determinism to affect character interactions on a social context. All your complaints are addressed by my system – the only difference is that I’ve suggested a way for them to work without statistics. That you can’t imagine them working without statistics doesn’t mean they won’t.

Of course it need numbers if you hope to utilize the system as a whole, if you cut off dialog from the system why keep combat?

Who said anything about cutting off dialogue? You’re making less sense with each new post. You’re not browsing porn while typing, are you?

I differ preferences from decisions based on risk and reward and system. In preferences you don't lose something in a mechanical sense.

Both systems are governed by a player’s preference over which choices to make. Yes, it really is that simple.

 

[dagorkan]

2/

The rest of your article. I agree with you about how character knowledge/ability and player knowledge/ability should be dealt with. You should not be able to solve mysteries or figure out approaches magically which you didn't figure out just because your character has a bunch of numbers.

Instead of scrapping charisma/intelligence stats though, I would have a different approach.

Social/intellectual attributes should not directly affect opportunities or outcomes, but should help you as a player figure out things which would difficult (for the average player) otherwise. You should gain an advantage but not directly through game mechanics. How do you do this? You are right that you shouldn't introduce attributes as simply 'canned dialog lines' available only if you have the stat at the correct value.

What I would do is use a system like the 'awareness' perk in Fallout. If you had it you gained additional information which could potentially help you as a player figure out solutions or additional solutions to a problem. Unfortunately it was an either/or thing, either you had access that additional info (if you chose that perk) or you got nothing. Now do the same thing, but based on Charisma and Persuasion/dialog and other statistics, and add several levels of advantage. Use those stats as 'passive traits'.

Charisma for example: somebody with no skill is completely socially clueless. He/she will only notice the most obvious and will have no clue what an NPC thinks about them (or get it completely wrong). Change text descriptions and dialog to represent that. Say you have been sent as an envoy to a foreign land and need to talk to the king of that land. You arrive at the court and are challenged by some minor officials/court members. They are cold toward you (ignore for the moment different responses to characters based on their charisma), and are told to go away, but you don't necessarily know why.

-If you have a low charisma character you'll just get the standard dialog => You can attempt to question, confront, intimidate, bribe or whatever but it's just a guess what will work.
-If you have medium charisma you get the same dialog but you might have noticed them glancing at your clothes/appearance (added in brackets, "the lanky, effeminate looking courtier glances at your clothing, "away with you or I'll call the guards" ') => This is a (not so subtle) clue to the player. The player could then question a common person in the city and questioning in depth find out about the social/aesthetic prejudices of the land, and that armor is only worn by servants (he could have learned this anyway, with low stats but wouldn't have been given the clue). If you then buy high class clothes and go back to the palace you can convince them more easily that you are an official envoy and must be let through.
-If you have high charisma you'd get the same dialog again, same observation as med-CHA but also notice one of the court ladies looking at you or speaking in a way that might suggest she is attracted to you, or that there is antagonism between two courtiers as if they dislike to agree with each other => As well as the hint about clothing/prejudice you also get the hint to talk to the female courtier on her own - or, to respond to a comment by sarcastically making fun of one of the courtiers, which will make his rival laugh, and be better disposed to you when you talk to him alone (but gain the enmity of the first courtier).

All of the options and paths described are available to all characters but hints are used to help the player decide what approaches might work - the stats don't directly affect success/failure. In a typical RPG you couldn't prevent a low-CHA character from trying all possible options, so you add in a variable for how often you've been told to go away or received the same response. If you keep approaching them they'll get annoyed and close off opportunities to get through using just dialog - you'll be kicked out by the guards.

With this approach every character can potentially succeed and take any path but the same player with a high-CHA character will on average have a higher chance of succeeding. A player with a low-CHA character could make it but it would be blind luck, and with a med/low-CHA character it would depend on how much the player paid attention to clues he's been given. A player who hasn't 'invested' in social/dialog skills will require more luck or more effort/time to succeed at the social/dialog approach.

This way you still get a reward for investing in non-combat skills, but in a way which is far more natural, interesting and yes, immersive than the stupid system they have in Fallout. It's an RPG, which uses a proper ruleset, but you don't get the negatives which normally plague CRPGs - the feeling that you have to 'cheat the system' and trying to figure out what the game designers were expecting you to do.

Same thing can be done with Intelligence, but preferably you'd have all kinds of reputations, specific skills, eg Knowledge:court ettiquette, Knowledge:foreign land, etc which might play a role.

 

[dagorkan]

Also getting rid of charisma and intelligence altogether I think would be a waste they can still serve a purpose. Charisma I'd treat more like beauty/physical attractiveness (that stupid blond girl is still a jawdropper one you'd be happy to help if only because of the hormones taking over your common sense; if the target is a male with high charisma at least he is not a stinky disfigured individual and he''d get a better treatment than otherwise). Also some people with low charisma might favor similar people a few true but high charisma shouldn't guarantee a better reaction. Skills like speech, knowledge of the subject and other factors should affect the flow of the conversation after that initial reaction. So I'd make charisma a low cost stat something that still helps but is in no way comparable to the physical stats.

Obviously in my last post I treat Charisma as independent from physical Beauty, and more like social skills and presence. You could take out Charisma but Beauty should always be part of your RPG stats unless you're playing some pre-set character or its assumed you're playing an average joe.

Looking forward to part 2, Roleplayer, it's refreshing to see this kind of discussion in the Content forum.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I'll try to get back to your feedback some time tomorrow (tricky to manage since Friday I'll lose all internet access but I guarantee I will do my best)

 

[Kraszu]

I am not sure if cutting CH and INT from dialogue is necessary, what is impornat is bigger impact on social interactions and gathering information instend of knowing everything. For example character whit big INT read book about quantum psychics you got in your notebook (like in Discworld Noir) important information and you find the book interesting, same book whit low INT just bored you and made you only confused you find it useless and boring and left it. The problem is that you should overcome statistic in game like when you have good rouge skill you have to figure out haw to fight using them, if you have low INT you are will not be able to avoid every dangerous situation, and you will not got missions that smart diplomat will get. The problem is that you don't know how much INT or CH is needed for dialogue so there is no real planing you just go CH/INT to have more dialogues in dark instead of that system why not choose character at game creation you will choose from couple of archetypes like:

Diplomat is well spoken and can understand other people emotion state and use it for his needs. He is genetically weak (start whit max of 5 str and 5 dex) he is also unable to learn most fighting techniques and gain only 40% lp per level.

Having no INT/CH has also it purpose as you will be able to decide in game on the way that you want to solve each problem, by the cost of being less limited by statistics (lower replay value, easier).

I like combination of adventure game (gathering information like in Discworld Noir) whit rpg personally.

Or maybe predefined character that is limited by guild if he choose diplomat patch he will not be trained by combat teachers and has access to best weapon armor but will have access to informations that mercenary don't have.

 

[Castanova]

In all RPGs, NPCs serve two utilitarian purposes (1) exposition (in which stats like INT/CHA are pointless) and (2) quest dispensors/advancers (in which the typical stats like INT/CHA are sufficient). If you want interaction with NPCs to evolve into some actually FUN (regardless of whether certain Codex members consider it a true RPG) then it's pretty obvious that the RPG paradigm is, indeed, outdated.

A set of 8 statistics are simply not enough to model a realistic, difficult, and rewarding social experience. To be honest, I don't think any game in any genre has modeled a rewarding social experience with AI actors. Correct me if I'm wrong. I imagine designers of diplomacy style war games would be very interested in such a system.

 

[Vault Dweller]

While in more traditional computer role-playing games your character's choices in dialogue are often defined by gaming mechanisms which attempt to simulate intelligence and charisma, those concepts rarely play into the game. An intelligent character who expertly discusses scientific knowledge does so because the player has been involved in the time honoured metagaming tradition of adjusting numbers - rarely because the expertise has actually been acquired by the character.

Higher INT means higher learning capacity and it does imply that an intellectually gifted character can discuss things and grasps concepts that an average Joe can't. It's a question of design, of course:

What do you know about hard drives?

A. [INT] A hard disk drive (HDD), commonly referred to as a hard drive or hard disk,[1] is a non-volatile storage device which stores digitally encoded data on rapidly rotating platters with magnetic surfaces. Strictly speaking, "drive" refers to a device distinct from its medium, such as a tape drive and its tape, or a floppy disk drive and its floppy disk.

B. [INT] It's a data storage device. If you found one, I can hook it up for you.

C. Uh... They are drives, and they are ... uh... hard?

As you see from the example, option A is over the top and does imply some very specific training or access to Google, but option B is very reasonable and reflects your character's intelligence adequately.

The dungeon crawling mentality of the old days still applies - after a trifling gain of experience points, you are suddenly able to improve whatever value you want on a character's spreadsheet. And the character that has been making a living stomping on sewer rats for the past weeks is now suddenly able to do something completely different such as discussing quantum mechanics, quoting the works of Rimbaud or find the cure for cancer.

First, a simple "increase skills by using them" mechanic (Daggerfall, Morrowind, Prelude to Darkness) fixes this problem easily. Second, one's occupation is not an accurate tool to determine one's intelligence and what one is and isn't capable of.

Socrates, for example, who, I assume needs no introduction, did some stone masonry, served in three military campaigns, and wandered the streets.

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9277120
"Interested in neither money, nor fame, nor power, Socrates wandered along the streets of Athens in the 5th century BC. He wore a single rough woolen garment in all seasons and went barefoot. Talking to whoever would listen, he asked questions, criticized answers, and poked holes in faulty arguments. His style of conversation has been given the name Socratic dialogue."

The first Codexer!

"He was widely known for his intellectual powers even before he was 40, when, according to Plato’s report of Socrates’s speech in the Apology, the oracle at Delphi pronounced him the wisest man in Greece."

That's a sculptor and a military veteran, mind you.

Conversely, is your character's intelligence doing anything that your own intelligence can't?

It determines (or should determine) what my character can and can not understand and figure out. Ideally, it should custom tailor gameplay for your character. If you [role-] play a gullible dumbass, that's what your gameplay experience should be like.

So instead of a static attribute determining what your character can and cannot express, why not have past experiences influence your character's conducts? What if convincing someone of your intentions stops being based on incremental changes to a spreadsheet and promotes the experiences and interactions your character has accumulated throughout his time in the gameworld as the primary way under which he evolves?

That's the biggest flaw of your argument. It's like saying "why not have tea instead of biscuits?". What does one have to do with the other? Why not have both?

Past experiences and actions should influence and change gameplay, opening and closing options as you move through a game. Nobody would ever argue against it. However, that doesn't mean that past experiences alone should influence gameplay. Stats and skills are valid and realistic "problem solving & progression" elements and should not be discarded. Some people are naturally better at certain things than other people. Have you not seen in your life very charismatic people who can charm almost anyone, talk their way in, and get away with pretty much anything?

Ion Storm's Deus Ex ... taking it to the next level ... statistics are absent ... options are governed by the character's past interactions... This results in a more organic relationship between the player and character...

But it also lends itself to a simplistic approach to how each role is actually played.

I agree, it's more organic, but at the same time very simplistic. So, unless you are inviting to simplify games, it's hardly a good solution.

But the system shows promise, specially in doing away with another low point of cRPGs - intelligence applied to problem solving and deduction skills, where it's not uncommon for players to have their progress stunted because the character is unable to piece together something the player has long understood, or when the character suddenly solves a problem the player had no idea how to.

Do the words "role-playing", Role-Player, ring any bells to you? If you are playing a dumb character, what you, the player, figured out or not figured out is absolutely irrelevant. Similarly, should a martial arts master complain that his character is taking too long to defeat a rat?

Second, why "intelligence applied to problem solving and deduction skills" is a low point all of a sudden? Where is the proof? Btw, I may find that amusing:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/31 ... rof_scams/

"A US scientist who collected $600,000 for SARS research in China from students, colleagues and friends, actually handed the money over to Nigerian 419ers, the Boston Herald reports.

Former Dana-Farber Cancer Institute researcher and Harvard University professor Weldong Xu, 38, was contacted by the lads from Lagos and promised $50m in quick profit."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/25 ... r_accused/

"A public treasurer in the Michigan county of Alcona stands accused of embezzling tax payers out of more than $1.2m, at least part of which was used to cover costs he incurred falling for a Nigerian banking fraud.

Thomas Katona, the former Treasurer of Alcona County, was charged with nine felonies. According to the Michigan Attorney General's office, the 56-year-old beancounter, who held his post for 13 years, also plowed $72,000 of his own money into the fraud."

Which stat check do you think they failed?

In situations like these, there seems to be little reason to force the character - itself a logical extension of the player's personality - into a frustrating situation where his advancement is halted by rules which are looking at a static value rather than the player's own reasoning and deduction.

That's where the problem is. Your character is not necessary a mini you. It could be someone completely different, reacting to things differently and having skills and abilities that you don't, and the only way to achieve it is through stats and skills limiting your own input and opening up new, character-specific options.

With that said... Get rid of Intelligence and Charisma as a play mechanic that influences dialogue.

You article does a good job showing many design flaws and that, perhaps, what you should have focused on. Instead you followed in the Bethesda footsteps - saw a problem, but instead of fixing by improving the design, you decided that cutting it completely would be a better option.

 

[Human Shield]

If you’ve got any factual evidence that my argument is a pro-immersion stance (other than your skewered perception of what I wrote) or that less statistics translate into such (other than your own interpretation of what the genre has to be on electronic format), feel free to point it out. Otherwise, you can drop the bullshit about how game mechanics must adhere to some code only you seem to be clued on.

Considering rules as outdated devices from PnP games is moving away from the genre and only bringing in other elements.

“Mechanically driven” means something is being driven by the use of mechanics. Dialogue is a mechanic. This isn’t up for discussion unless you want to bitch about something simply because you disagree with it and can’t find a way to win the argument.

Non-RPGs can do dialog, dialog trees, and track actions. I don't know why you think they are the pinnacle of RPGs, they are neither rules or mechanics in the RPG sense that is why action games can do it just as well.

D&D combat was designed for gameplay, not designed for role-playing. That some role-play in D&D combat doesn’t tell anything about the system, just as using one’s imagination in Oblivion doesn’t say anything about its choices and consequences (or lack thereof).

RPG combat itself is RPG gameplay that is why Dungeon Crawlers are still RPGs. Your idea of what "role-playing" really is, is limited when it shouldn't be.

Just as you can’t assume all RPG rulesets have to adhere to the conventions you enjoy simply because you enjoy them or lead yourself to believe they are defining of the genre.

I am saying they have to have a ruleset, which tracking actions is not and will never be (try to write that up in a PnP rulebook).

Your opinion has no bearing about how flawed they are if they serve their purpose.

Except they don’t.

So low intelligence dialog didn't serve its simulation purpose for those that wanted it?

Social behavior in my example is given a value and is used in gameplay. What it doesn’t do is use a numerical value. Which is probably why you’re so keen on dumbing it down to “imagination”.

Values are numbers, you are talking about binary switches. Why does combat use numerical values, does it serve its purpose, why can't numbers serve dialog purposes?

Optimally talking would either aid in exploring the world/effect the world (and to effect the world in a simulated fashion you would variables of success), be a chance to be challenged, or pose mechanically driven moral choices.

All of which my suggestion already covers. Just because you repeatedly misinterpret my argument and keep assuming some statistical value associated with dialogue at all times is what creates these possibilities doesn’t make it correct.

Then explain how you variable levels of success from character build with trade offs in effectiveness, or pose a challenge, or provide moral choices backed by a ruleset without numbers.

It is the same "you don't need numbers" argument that goes nowhere because games and gameplay outside of twitch rely on numbers. You would end up with RPG combat and other elements but a separate way to handle dialog.

Skills would be a possibility, but not the only one. I’d prefer to use other methods for character awareness and limitations of self in terms of intellectual and social structures.

Could you give more details?

How is it a tougher choice to know exactly what CHA value you need to have to accomplish some interaction? Also, both systems are IF statements – don’t bother saying otherwise.

One is binary while the other is a function call (you can attach whatever means you want to get the final number). It is a tougher choice because you have to give up effectiveness in other areas to get a higher CHA.

Probably from the notion that we need to impose a mechanic constructed to stop arguments between the players and the Dungeon Master on every variation of the genre.

This is just completely wrong and shows your lack of awareness in PnP design. The numbers in Dogs in the Vineyard and Capes aren't their to stop arguments, the numbers themselves CAN CREATE STORY IN PLAY. Numbers and reward systems guide behavior, you're working from the flawed idea that numbers settle arguments instead of creating gameplay.

You should realize the limits of what numbers can actually do before you want a replacement.

All your complaints are addressed by my system – the only difference is that I’ve suggested a way for them to work without statistics. That you can’t imagine them working without statistics doesn’t mean they won’t.

No you haven't, either it is binary, twitch, or you hide the numbers. So explain your "system". Is it a series of perks? What?

Of course it need numbers if you hope to utilize the system as a whole, if you cut off dialog from the system why keep combat?

Who said anything about cutting off dialogue?

Then how does it interact with the numbers that effect the other actions.

 

[Severian Silk]

I couldn't read the article. The English isn't that great.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Aye, I don't want to be an ass about it because I actually very much respect Role-Players work (I liked your Wizardy 8 review) and any new content on the side, but your writing style gives me a hard time sometimes.

Of course I'm not a native speaker nor a very skilled english user, but I don't think the problem is entirely on my side.

Just as a suggestion, I think you tend to get caught up in far too complicated sentence structures while you could say the same thing in a much simpler (but not less sophisticated) way.
But as I said just a suggestion.

 

[Castanova]

Are the paradigms of English grammar out-dated?

 

[Kraszu]

It is funny as I can understand him perfectly, and have no problems, maybe we make the same mistakes .

 

[xedoc gpr]

Just as a suggestion, I think you tend to get caught up in far too complicated sentence structures while you could say the same thing in a much simpler (but not less sophisticated) way.
But as I said just a suggestion.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Just reading the first sentence, I could think of a lot of different ways that could have been said which would sound more natural....

 

[dagorkan]

Maybe Roleplayer is trying to roleplay a character with Intelligence/speech skills far higher than his own

 

[Severian Silk]

Why not have Section8 write/proof-read/edit all the articles? His English is fine.

It is funny as I can understand him perfectly, and have no problems, maybe we make the same mistakes .

Maybe you just think you understand it, when in reality your understanding is completely garbled and off base.

 

[spacemoose]

Maybe Roleplayer is trying to roleplay a character with Intelligence/speech skills far higher than his own

I liked the article btw.

 

[Joe Krow]

[I ran through the editorial real quick (is an hour and a half real quick? ) . Hopefully this helps some of the non-native speakers. I couldn't resist. (And sorry Roleplayer if I misconstued any of your points).]

Next-Gen Role-Playing Design: Are the paradigms of role-playing outdated?

Today's article is about dialogue conventions.

Hardcore gaming communities swear that statistics are imperative to creating fully realized alter-egos in RPGs. As an example, Charisma and Intelligence are considered vital when simulating social interaction. These stats help define a persona outside our own and allow us to roleplay as someone else. What would happen, however, if Intelligence and Charisma had their ties with dialogue severed?

Some will claim that such a change would dilute a cRPG or set it outside of the genre all together. Previous games presented special dialogue and consequences for characters with low Intelligence... but is a game a worse role-playing experience because it does not offer this?

In traditional crpgs your character's dialogue choices are often defined by gaming mechanisms which attempt to simulate intelligence and charisma. An intelligent character who expertly discusses scientific knowledge does so because the player has been adjusting numbers- rarely because the expertise has been acquired by the character. Die rolls may be factored in and can simulate failure, as would occur in actual dialogue, but the use of statistics as simple on/off switches is all too common.

This is an example of cRPG developers failing to recreate the nuances of the original medium. While role-playing has evolved into a form of collaborative story-telling, cRPGs try to to replicate the reliance on statistics found in the genre's humble foundations. After gaining experience points, you are able to improve whatever value you choose on a character's spreadsheet.

The industry's shift to believable virtual actors, through lip synching and other such aesthetics, are leaving an impression on gamers... but what does this do for the character you're playing? You can tell when he is lying or feeling troubled through an npc's expressions but can your character do the same? Is your character's intelligence doing anything that your own intelligence can't? Is it more rewarding to adjust a value to gain a benefit than it is to work for the same result?

It could be argued that this abstract method of character representation is essential to the genre. Using numbers to define the non-qualitative elements of a character and skill checks are genre staple. However, nomenclature such as "INT 15" or "CHA 7" fails to convey much about a character (except for his odds of successfully casting a spell or being given an extra option in a dialogue tree). Instead of having an attribute determine what your character can or cannot express, why not have past experiences influence your character's conduct? What if dialogue stoped being based on a spreadsheet and instead relied on the experiences and interactions your character had accumulated? This concept isn't new but it hasn't been well developed either. So where do we go from here?

Deus Ex and its sequal are examples of taking it to the next level. Their use of dialogue is one where statistics, as we normally find them in traditional cRPGs, are absent. There is no intelligence or charisma, and new options available in dialogue trees are governed by the character's past interactions. The result is a more organic relationship between the player and character: the player can easily determine what has influenced the choices given to his character. It is also closer to interactive story-telling: the story is based on the player's own in-game experiences rather than someone else's story you have no choice but to follow.

However, this also simplifies how a role is actually played. The character's interactions dicate what the character is subsequently able to express... until this occurs every character has the same personality and predefined choices. Since defining attributes are gone, two very different characters will initially have the same dialogue options. This brings up another issue: if charisma is removed then a character can choose dialogue options without fear of ever "failing." To illustrate this, at one point in Invisible War the main character is tasked with assassination. When confronting the victim, the player is given two dialogue choices: Telling the NPC his usual contact has been replaced or telling the NPC his usual contact has been replaced, while also posing as his new contact and asking for a monetary reward. The results create the illusion of choice (since both answers lead to the same outcome), illusion of role-playing (since the actual role is automated and left outside the player's field of decision), and illusion of goals (since the reward as a goal is always attainable and requires no effort on behalf of the player). While these flaws can be fixed, they are still a possibility inherent in it.

I believe this system shows promise, particullarly because it does not rely on an intelligence stat for problem solving and deduction skills. Using an intellegence stat the character might be unable to comprehend something the player has long understood or the character may solve problems the player could not. Some will argue that the mental faculties of a character should have a say in what options are available. I agree, this does define the kind of gameplay we've come to expect in a traditional cRPG, but what are these mechanics doing that they cannot be replaced with the player's own perception, intuition and intelligence? Using statistics in an attempt to simulate personality, critical thought, and willpower doesn't always work in a satisfying way. Role-playing requires that players process the information given to them and act accordingly. A background mechanic that can halt advancement with stat checks doesn't always translate into a better role-playing experience.

But what about the statistics themselves? Are they worthwhile? Are they perceived to be as important as, say, Strength? Admittedly, this can be chalked up to either the designer's lack of vision or problems in defining just what it is. For the most part, current cRPGs dictate that power is achieved by lots and lots (and lots) of combat. The notion that a skilled diplomat, bringing a nation to its knees, might be just as powerful is met with "no seriously, where my Mace of Fiery Bludgeoning +13 at?".

I suspect that developers have broken these concepts down based on a belief that roleplaying can never be fully recreated electroniclly. Intelligence outside of social interaction is often delegated to skill point gain, allowing "smarter" characters to gain and spend more points on their attributes. Charisma stands on questionable ground as well; downgraded to a simple way of checking how many NPCs should follow the character or as a way to convince a character to do something that may contradict his reasoning. These conventions in cRPG design conceal a conflict in the genre: character development in a social context should rely on the player, not a statistic. Even if a character reaches the highest possible INT value in the game, his interactions are still going to be dictated by how intelligent the player is. An incredibly low INT value is irrelevant when the player is quick-witted enough to deal with problems his character would not have been able to. Charisma shares the same issue - there are other, more dynamic, means of representing personality and influence.

In the long run, the impact of social stats that limit a character's progress becomes either negligible or a hassle. You cannot code personality traits the player does not have the ability to play nor can you give characters a personality trait the player has no idea how to role-play. This causes a rift considering that many times players can see through plot twists before the characters do. Getting rid of Intelligence and Charisma as a play mechanic that influences dialogue would solve these problems. Deus Ex's character progression uses ancillary skills and abilities, but it is primarily focused on how the player has interacted with the gameworld and its entities.

Are we willing to accept dialogue that only sporadically reflects the character's statistics? Look back to your experiences with the genre - what was the last time your incredibly intelligent character actually spoke like he was incredibly intelligent? More than likely he spoke like everyone else except during situations that required a stat check to gleam some information, reward, or to add flavor to the dialogue. A stat check is not as defining of a character's role as most other actions players can execute, and it says nothing about the character itself (other that you've been fiddling with the character spreadsheet). A system that tracks character interactions and correlates them to the NPCs the players encounter can easily assign or remove dialogue options. This would create a world with open-ended goals and NPCs that track your actions rather than your numbers.

I believe there are various ways of achieving this:

1) Track specific actions and use dialogue to emphasize how the character has done things in the gameworld not how the player has developed his character statistically. To illustrate this, here is a scenario. You are hired to sort out some guerrillas. You proceed to defend a city... resulting in a bloodbath. You are the sole survivors. Further into the game, you come across a group of robbers that has cornered a child. Traditionally, you'd have several dialogue options, complete with stat or skill checks, determining if you could influence the robber to leave the victim alone. Instead, I suggest, the character's past interactions (the experience with Ascaron) could influence the options available. The game would offer the character the option of saying "You will suffer by my hand as the Nomads did at Ascaron". What the game is doing is assigning labels, which can then be used in dialogue. The player could "earn" different labels (which would simply translate into different dialogue options) and decide which to use in certain conditions. When the character experienced a particular event, the same experience could 'unlock' various dialogue options. So, while surviving the battle of Ascaron could allow the PC to use his experience to scare robbers away, he could also use "The pain I inflicted to the Ascaron Nomads pales to the one you are about to feel" to intimidate an NPC to do his bidding.


2) A modular dialogue system which tracks a character's skills and introduces variations to the dialogue's structure based on them. To illustrate this example let's envision another scenario. Shadow Bob is someone who has poor knowledge of bartering and academic studies but is trying to purchase a technological item for a low price. His dialogue option would be the same for every other character who, like Bob, wasn't particularly well versed in science or economics:

*"Would you be willing to part with that metallic, LED-incrusted gun for 1200 coins?"

Notice the underlined words? The idea here is to have them reflect the character's current knowledge in a given topic, skill or situation (or any combination of these). Since Bob is lacking in both scientific and economic knowledge he doesn't know what the object really is nor is he aware of what would be a better price. Let's assume Shadow Bob doesn't make the purchase and later gains knowledge about weaponry and bartering techniques. Upon returning, the dialogue to purchase the same item would change to:

*"Would you be willing to part with that Ion Repeater Rifle for 750 coins?"

The key advantage of this system is that it lets writers focus on more important dialogue events, while not having to worry with more mundane situations such as these since the system would automatically track which part of the sentence structure would need to change to better reflect the PC's skills and knowledge.

3) Let players determine a character's social behaviour by addopting "postures." These postures could depict various personalities, whether by means of speech or actions. Dialogue would be conveyed both textually and visually. This means that, while influencing an NPC will require dialogue, it would no longer require a flat stat check. Instead of threatening a character through canned dialogue, players could instead choose an aggressive posture which would then depict the PC drawing his weapon and threatening the NPC with it. This could also include spell casting during dialogue to alter the NPCs disposition towards the player. This system could have other uses, such as stealing from characters through dialogue which has the benefit of not requiring actions outside of dialogue. You could require the player pull off certain manoeuvers to steal from an NPC such as misleading him, and go for the theft when he is distracted (the specifics can be as simple or as complex as you want them to be, depending on the situation). Other options include asking for higher rewards when tasked with retrieving items. For example you could accept the quest reward or ask for a better one by threatening to destroy the object you've just been tasked to recover.

These clearly aren't the be-it-all, end-it-all possibilities for where dialogue could go and neither are they trying to be. These suggestions are made from an enthusiast's point of view and that's all they are; ideas for design that are meant to raise discussion about the genre's traditional play mechanics. Whether an adherence to said elements are invigorating or stifling; the important thing here is to look at what the genre has offered and honestly ask if that's all it can ever aspire to.

 

[Mr Happy]

Before I start, I will just say that I am going on the assumption that you are suggesting that all dialogue related skills are absent from your character creation as well, so if that is not true, some of what I write might not apply.

You bring up some big flaws with many of the current applications of charisma and intelligence in rpgs that I certainly agree with, but I don’t see getting rid of the stats as the best solution. I see them as something just as applicable as an attribute like strength, and if a game that better allows you to define a character is a better RPG, I think their absence could be more of a detriment to the Rpgness (or whatever the official term for that is, Rpgity?) of the game.

I agree with a lot of the ideas of consequence and past experience playing into dialogue and most of the stuff in “The part where he shuts up and puts up. Maybe.” But I don’t really see those things as replacements, just as things that could do a lot for a game’s dialog, and I’ll even comment on those in another post or something. As VD said, nobody is going to argue against past actions and things you learn affecting what you can say, that stuff is great in dialogue, but. Past experience isn’t a very good substitute for skills/attributes though, you generally aren’t bringing the character through his whole life, and it is assumed that he already has some knowledge/ability when you start off.

Your argument against intelligence seemed to be a little more convincing than the argument against charisma. I do agree that there is the inconsistency that no matter how high or low the INT stat is, decisions are still made on the players ability to understand things. On the other hand, I have never seen Charisma as a “measure of personality” or indicative of a certain personality trait, just the charm, influencing ability, and communicability of a person, so I don’t really see a conflict there. You say that “Charisma shares the same issue - there are other, more dynamic, means of representing personality and influence”, but isn’t personality independent of charisma?

While there is more of a conflict (that I can see) with intelligence, it seems to go hand in hand with charisma. It wouldn’t make sense ability to formulate an argument, to outwit someone, to put on a convincing disguise to rely solely on charm those things require some brains. To deal with the problems of decision making, intelligence could effect the amount of information you have to base our decision on. For example, an attempt of someone giving information on a murder case to your low intelligence character could abstract some of the dialogue: “The first thing to remember is that the murder occurred around midnight, and [the inspector gives you other unimportant details, and at certain points you have no idea what he is going on about].” While that level of abstraction might be tough in this day of fully voiced dialogues (another argument against them), and that wasn’t a great example, but it highlights some of your characters inability to draw connections and understand things, and removes the some of the player understanding vs. character understanding. A smarter character might get added insight, and draw connections that the player might or might not have made.

About the ideas in “The part where he shuts up and puts up. Maybe.”, I definitely agree with them (and I might expand on them in another post) but personally, I think the more social stats affecting dialogue, the merrier. Having to consider your improvisation/deception ability, your persuading ability, your ability to notice things (motives, emotions) about people, etc, would add a good deal of depth to a diplomat character, as there would be different ways of handling things within a conversation. I think the trap many “the diplomatic solution”s fall into is that they are just that, The diplomatic solution. You should be considering different tactics, direct vs. indirect, mood/stance, flattering vs. blackmailing/manipulative, based on your abilities, the NPCs abilities and the situation (gunpoint vs. interrogation vs. presence of bodygaurds vs. neutral ground). I think to remove intelligence/charisma/social skills would make dialogue less interesting: you would have less to consider.


And now for something completely different:

–

The damn Euro signs seem to have invaded all of the previous articles and past threads. While it would be a bit of a stretch to clean up every decent thread that has been infested with them, I think a lot of the articles could use some fixing.

 

[cutterjohn]

What you wrote about should be called an adventure game.

 

[Oarfish]

It's the pursuit of compelling cinematic narrative that is partially responcible for killing the RPG genre and needlessly polluting others. I rarely watch more than a few seconds of cut scene from any FPS or RTS, not because of impatience but because they are almost always shoddily written and largely irrelevant to the business of killing computerised foozles.

Maybe I have been playing too many roguelikes recently, but I would really like to see the industry have a crack at another Daggerfall. Modelling skill based social interactions is far easier if you are not trying to create convincing branching dialogue for every reasonable player action.

 

[Keldryn]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that RPG paradigms are outdated; many gamers (obviously) still enjoy computer/video games that are a recreation of the tabletop or pencil & paper experience, and I certainly won't begrudge them that.

I do believe that many games are limited by the traditional RPG genre conventions, which is different that saying that those conventions are outdated.

I recently tried out Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil, and I have to admit that it does a damn fine job of replicating a game of 3rd Edition Revised D&D. But I also found it somewhat tedious and got bored with it fairly quickly.

Every medium has strengths and weaknesses, and I've become more of a believer in designing a game that is mindful of that.

Pencil & Paper games are great for socializing with your friends. You've got another human player moderating the game who can make judgements on the fly and who can create new opportunities for adventure as the game unfolds. He or she can also provide some guidance if the players get too off track, and a good GM will make sure that all of the players have something do to and that they're not getting bored or frustrated with the game. The interaction of players with NPCs is generally very natural and easy to pull off, as there is no conformity to pre-scripted conversations. The spur-of-the-moment creativity, on the part of both the players and the GM, is one of the biggest strengths.

On the down side, there is a lot of time spent looking up rules, spell descriptions, monster stats, and the like. If there are more than 3 or 4 players in the group, you often start to have issues with the louder and more assertive players dominiting the session while the quieter players get ignored. The very nature of the group-based play requires a systematic turn-based system of resolving action, particularly in combat. Because of this, combat encounters tend to be very time-consuming. Physical and visual props are generally expensive to purchase and cumbersome to carry, so they generally don't get much of a role in the game (i.e. painted miniatures being moved around on a "map" that is crudely-drawn with dry erase markers). There is probably a greater role of imagination and visualization as each player tries to picture what the scene looks like, but you can also guarantee that the scene as pictured by the GM is entirely different than how it is pictured by each individual player.

CRPGs on computers and game consoles are a very visually-oriented medium -- with a very strong auditory component as well. Players can be spared the painful experience of male DMs trying to speak in a feminine voice. :wink: Computers are extremely good at mathematical calculations and in the "bookkeeping" tasks associated with RPGs. Combat sequencing doesn't have to be figured out in the DM's head and scribbled on paper; the computer handles this effortlessly, even with a large group of players. If the game design calls for it, the computer can sequence combat entirely in real-time, resulting in combats that don't take a quarter of the entire game session to resolve, and perhaps making them feel more exciting as well. The visuals in a computer/console RPG are certainly expensive to create, but the $50 that a player pays for an entire fantasy world realized on one CD/DVD would buy you a couple of miniature figures and perhaps one or two hallway pieces from Dwarven Forge.

The main area where CRPGs pale in comparison to live pencil & paper gaming is, of course, in the adaptability of the GM and the rather rigid nature of the computer; it can only do what it's been programmed to do, and computer-controlled characters can only speak the lines that have been pre-written and/or pre-recorded for them. If players try to do things that the designers haven't thought of and if the world logic wasn't designed to handle such cases, you can get some pretty ridiculous things happening (i.e. building a bridge of bread loaves to cross the ocean in Ultima IX). You also lose out on the social aspect; even in MMORPGs or smaller multiplayer games like Neverwinter Nights you lose a lot when your only interface to other people is your keyboard.

The combat-oriented parts of pencil & paper RPGs is very easy for their computer RPG counterparts to pull off, and they've been doing it well for years. Interaction with NPCs, adaptable quests, and anything else that requires human judgement and subjectivity have lagged behind and are still nowhere near the level of recreating the tabletop RPG experience. Perhaps it is better to not try to reproduce the pencil & paper RPG experience as accurately as possible, but to build a game that plays up the strengths of the electronic medium and downplays its weaknesses, even it if means straying farther from the "RPG roots." I am not making an objective statement on which way is better, as this is obviously an issue which divides RPG fans. As I grow older and have less free time to spend on gaming, I have definitely been leaning towards the "just make a brilliant game that uses the medium to its advantage and don't worry about how RPGish it is" end of the continuum, but I make no claims that my preference is shared by everyone.

When designing NPCs and quests and writing dialogue, there will always be a number of players who are not satisfied with the options given to them. There will always be options that they think of that the designers did not. In some ways, the more freedom and flexibility you give the player, the more they will notice when their desired option is absent.

Perhaps the style of dialogue in Fallout and Planescape: Torment, in which you gain specific dialogue options based on your Int, Wis, or Cha stats and/or skill values, is too specific. The more specific the options get, the more likely it is that players will feel that it doesn't fit their vision of their character. Ultima VII gave you one-word topics to ask about, and through the course of the conversation -- or conversations with others -- new options would appear as you heard about them. It left the specific wording up to the player's imagination, and it could be as tactful and intellectual as the player desired.

Is it right to force roleplaying upon the player? If there are certain dialogue options that will only appear if the character has attributes above or below a certain value, then that is restricting the player's choice. If the player is given an inclusive list of dialogue options that include tactful, smart-ass, and downright rude options, as well as persuasive and intimidating responses, then the need for a Charisma statistic is lessened. Realistically, the other person's response is going to be far more influenced by your approach (politeness vs rudeness, assertive/demanding vs laid back), your reputation and their past experiences with you, how many questions you've already asked them, and the general wording of your request than how "charasmatic" you are.

As a player, I find it far more satisfying to achieve my desired result in dialogue through the careful selection of what to say and through having accomplished a task or two for the individual, if appropriate, then selecting what "should" be the right things to say but having the game tell me "[Skill check failed]. No, I don't want to do that for you." I then buzz off for a while and after leveling up and improving whatever stats or skills effect that conversation option, I return and do the exact same sequence of dialogue again, so the game can tell me "[Skill check succeeded]. Okay, I'll give you this sword that I can't actually use anyway." It feels too random, artificial, and out of my control, and it's not a very satisfying experience. It's also not really "role-playing" if I'm selecting the only meaningful dialogue options that the game is giving my character. If the player doesn't want to play his character as a dumb, abrasive brute in ever single conversation, then why should the game designers enforce that?

Requiring the player to select appropriate dialogue options and then making the success of those options dependent upon a randomly generated number vs his skill or attribute score is somewhat redundant. I suppose it is meant to represent (in part) how genuine the character comes across, but that's often part of the dialogue selection process (some options specified as "[Lie]"). If the outcome of the dialogue should be entirely dependent upon the character's charisma or speech skill, then the dialogue may as well be simplified to the single option "Use [speechcraft] to achieve the optimal result."

In general, I favour game systems where the outcome is more dependent upon the player's decisions and skill (not to be read "skill at twitchy arcade games) than upon random chance. I would be ecstatic to remove all tasks that boil down to retrying a task endlessly until the "roll of the dice" determine that you succeed and reloading the game when you've screwed it up only to start the sequence again. That requires no skill or intellect whatsoever and is only an exercise in patience and time-wasting. Lockpicking is a major offender of this sort of thing. This is not to say that tasks such as these should be automatically successful and pose no challenge whatsoever; however clicking on the same treasure chest 60 times until you eventually open it isn't "difficult" or "challenging" either. In Deus Ex, for example, lockpicking was about managing your resources (lower skill requires more lockpicks, which were limited in number) and how much time you spend (lower skill meant a longer time; in some areas you would be spotted if you spent too long).

Then there is the always tricky subject of player knowledge vs character knowledge. It's challenging enough to enforce this as a DM in a pencil & paper game, and virtually impossible to do in a CRPG unless you prohibit a player from doing anything that his character does not know about. This can be very frustrating as a player (especially if you run into a bug that doesn't set a flag properly or if you have to restart the game and re-play the sequence of learning what you already know), and it's also extremely inconsistent. You can't ask an NPC about something you haven't heard about yet (as that's easy to do with setting flags) but there are any number of things about the game that you can do without "your character" discovering it first -- where to find certain items and quests, the layout of the land, weaknesses of monsters, etc. And again, I find it far more satisfying as a player to use the knowledge that I possess and that I gain from the game than to "simulate" my character's knowledge with skills and random number generation. Not that knowledge-type skills don't play a part -- sometimes it's a great way of giving the player knowledge of the game world from an in-fiction perspective, if it's appropriate to the character.

I wouldn't advocate removing stats entirely from RPGs -- although I do think there are other ways to model advancement for all practical purposes -- but it is also possible to rely too much on stats for determining success, to the point where I start to feel that my decisions as a player (in a given situation, as opposed to in character development) are almost irrelevant.

I'd love to speak more on this subject, as it's something I've given a lot of thought to, but I need to get back to work.

 

[Joe Krow]

I think it's the dialogue trees themselves that are the problem and they will remain a problem no matter how many stats are integratred with them. I wouldn't call them "outdated" per se but, for me, they have become extremely boring. Despite the sentiment here, they are not the essence of the genre. As far as I know, dialogue trees don't even exist in the PnP RPGs the best computer RPGs attempt to replicate. Pesonally, I have always favored objective oriented dialogue over the narrative path.

Objective oriented dialogue is a tool to build your characters knowledge of the overall lore and bring you closer to your chosen objectives (as exemplified in Ultima 4-6). It is very simular to what Roleplayer described in his article. Taking a quest should not be a yes/no selection you made in a dialogue tree (heretofore "maze"): taking a quest is persueing that quest. Success is not returning to the quest dispenser for some XP and your next mission (heretofore "cheese"): it is finding the item, individual, or location you set out to find.

As you increase your knowledge and experience in the game world new dialogue options should open to reflect this. Rumors should be clues that suggest objectives to the character and open lines of inquiry. As Role-player suggests, you're reputation should be based on the moral implications of the goals you've chosen to persue; rather then the alignment you choose when you roled up your character (and have pretty much ignored since). Which of three inane (and often irrelevant) dialogue choices did you select? Who gives a fuck? One option was only available because INT>15... now I should give a fuck?

The OP talks a lot about how dull it is to mindlessly roll stat checks against a "character spreadsheet" and I agree with him. However, watching your spreadsheet wheel his way through a dialogue flowchart, no matter how well written, is even less entertaining. It's nice when they add a few extra twists to the maze and maybe a veriety of cheeses at the end, ultimately though, you're still just a rat in their maze.

 

[Hory]

I think it's the dialogue trees themselves that are the problem and they will remain a problem no matter how many stats are integratred with them. I wouldn't call them "outdated" per se but, for me, they have become extremely boring. Despite the sentiment here, they are not the essence of the genre.

I think you're "comparing apples and crocodiles". Dialogue trees are an interface. You are criticising the way quests are implemented, but that doesn't make the system bad.

As far as I know, dialogue trees don't even exist in the PnP RPGs the best computer RPGs attempt to replicate. Pesonally, I have always favored objective oriented dialogue over the narrative path.

Of course. PnP RPGs are multi-player games. Dialogue is generated on-the-fly, and computer AI can't do that yet. But is there something better than trees?

Objective oriented dialogue is a tool to build your characters knowledge of the overall lore and bring you closer to your chosen objectives (as exemplified in Ultima 4-6). It is very simular to what Roleplayer described in his article.

And how exactly do objective-oriented dialogues work? Are they the same with "choose a topic" dialogues?

Taking a quest should not be a yes/no selection you made in a dialogue tree (heretofore "maze"): taking a quest is persueing that quest.

Of course it doesn't have to be like this. The fact that so many NPCs outright present you quests is ridiculous, but not the fault of dialogue trees. A NPC might just as well present a problem he has (or even the problems of another NPC), and using a tree you could ask for particular details. How could you have a conversation without a tree? Then, you should be able to do the quest, should you want to, without necessarily having had to respond whether you will do it or not.

Success is not returning to the quest dispenser for some XP and your nest mission (heretofore "cheese"): it is finding the item, individual, or location you set out to find.

Again, that's just the way the quest is designed. Dialogue trees don't force the NPC to be in the same place with the reward. But when you do meet him, how is he going to say something to you? What if you did something and have no proof, shouldn't you be able to attempt to convince him? How will you be able to respond to him on multiple levels, without a dialogue tree?

Which of three inane (and often irrelevant) dialogue choices did you select? Who gives a fuck? One option was only available because INT>15... now I should give a fuck?

You should give a fuck if you are playing a RPG, and that RPG offers meaningful alternative paths that could be taken. But it doesn't have to rub it in your face that "this option is special" and that it depends on a certain skill.

However, watching your spreadsheet wheel his way through a dialogue flowchart, no matter how well written, is even less entertaining.

That process doesn't have to be transparent. Will it be entertaining then? Why not? What is entertainment? Do dialogue trees need more action? Less choices? More animations?

It's nice when they add a few extra twists to the maze and maybe a veriety of cheeses at the end, ultimately though, you're still just a rat in their maze.

Yeah, and there's no better solution yet. If you want quality writing, you need to anticipate and implement a limited number of situations. And, as pre-made dialogue trees are, they're still better at transposing a conversation, than anything else.

 

[Joe Krow]

I think it's the dialogue trees themselves that are the problem and they will remain a problem no matter how many stats are integratred with them. I wouldn't call them "outdated" per se but, for me, they have become extremely boring. Despite the sentiment here, they are not the essence of the genre.

I think you're "comparing apples and crocodiles". Dialogue trees are an interface. You are criticising the way quests are implemented, but that doesn't make the system bad.

Not really. The difference lies in the role that the dialogue itself plays in the game, the limits/options it creates, and what "drives the action" in the game. It does not matter what is actually being said or how well designed or engaing the quests are. The narrative, "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, implementation uses dialogue to impose a narrative plot on the character though a script w/forks. The freeform, objective oriented, version I described creates an open envioronment where dialogue is used to entice rather then direct. They are fundementally different.

As far as I know, dialogue trees don't even exist in the PnP RPGs the best computer RPGs attempt to replicate. Pesonally, I have always favored objective oriented dialogue over the narrative path.

Of course. PnP RPGs are multi-player games. Dialogue is generated on-the-fly, and computer AI can't do that yet. But is there something better than trees?

Obviously I think so.

Objective oriented dialogue is a tool to build your characters knowledge of the overall lore and bring you closer to your chosen objectives (as exemplified in Ultima 4-6). It is very simular to what Roleplayer described in his article.

And how exactly do objective-oriented dialogues work? Are they the same with "choose a topic" dialogues?

I think it would be easiest to implement it that way, yes. Full sentences could also be used but would add nothing except flavor. What's significant is what is being asked about and what the NPC knows, not how it is being asked. The characters significant choices do not have to be made in conversation.

Taking a quest should not be a yes/no selection you made in a dialogue tree (heretofore "maze"): taking a quest is persueing that quest.

How could you have a conversation without a tree? Then, you should be able to do the quest, should you want to, without necessarily having had to respond whether you will do it or not.

What i'm saying is that I find using scripted converation as the motive force in RPGs to be more restrictive then engaging. Three or four dialogue options cannot possibly simulate a realistic range of options. Nine times in ten, their only function is to move the player to the next plot point. What i'm suggesting, along with the OP, is that the chosen actions of the player take center stage rather then a script.

Success is not returning to the quest dispenser for some XP and your next mission (heretofore "cheese"): it is finding the item, individual, or location you set out to find.

Again, that's just the way the quest is designed. Dialogue trees don't force the NPC to be in the same place with the reward. But when you do meet him, how is he going to say something to you? What if you did something and have no proof, shouldn't you be able to attempt to convince him? How will you be able to respond to him on multiple levels, without a dialogue tree?

You respond to him after the conversation is over by selecting what you will do based on the information he provided. Why do you think it matters what you say to npcs? Realisticcly, whould an evil character confess his vileness with every breath? Wouldn't an evil character lie? How would that work? Should he select the first of three then... the good option? How is he not, in fact, being good then? The "options" presented on dialogue trees serve only one purpose: progressing the script.

Which of three inane (and often irrelevant) dialogue choices did you select? Who gives a fuck? One option was only available because INT>15... now I should give a fuck?

You should give a fuck if you are playing a RPG, and that RPG offers meaningful alternative paths that could be taken. But it doesn't have to rub it in your face that "this option is special" and that it depends on a certain skill.

Stilted dialogue options offer a meager roleplaying experience when compared to systems in which unscripted actions produce meaningfull effects.

It's nice when they add a few extra twists to the maze and maybe a veriety of cheeses at the end, ultimately though, you're still just a rat in their maze.

Yeah, and there's no better solution yet.

I disagree