Player Expression in RPGs

[Quillon]

In the last decade I saw a lot of effort from devs trying to incorporate "player expression" and the way they are doing it is:

a) lacking: this is understandable, they can't account for every possible type of player character and when they try to incorparate a wide range of expressions we get bloated conversation options, either way it is...

b) ...inconsistent: this depends on the budget and/or writers remembering what to account for every conversation which is only possible to accomplish when they set a small number of expressions for the player which is...

c) ...shit: cos saying the same thing in 4 different ways is...well, shit.

The way they are trying to incorporate player expression seems to have just one goal: saying the same thing in a manner that is in line with the character you are roleplaying. It accomplishes very little for the amount of effort put in imo.

I think choice(& consequence) is much more important than how you make/say that choice in an RPG, because you can easily imagine what kind of character yours is and what is he thinking when he makes that choice... you can fill in the blanks easily for the lack of expression but you can't do much about it when you feel there should be choice and there isn't.

If there has to be player expression I think they should make it like option c) :D aka Malkavian approach: It should be a choice from the start. There should be set number of personalities players can pick, like gentle, aggressive, jokester, dumb etc and everything player character says from then on should be translated into that personality and NPCs should have preference of what type of characters they like/hate or indifferent to etc and should react accordingly even when different player characters essentially say/do the same thing. Which would solve the inconsistency, the conversation bloat and the inconsequentiality of current implementations.

Maybe the number of personalities that devs can support would be limiting but ultimately it should make for a better experience imo and add enourmous replayablity value to an RPG...if it is at all doable(would it increase narrative budget significantly?).

 

[Butter]

Alpha Protocol did this perfectly. They didn't try to accommodate every tumblrina who wanted to R O L E P L A Y. They said "We have 3 secret agent archetypes for players to inhabit, so make sure there's an option for each one." This degree of focus and consistency meant they had the resources to develop reactivity for each expression.

 

[poetic]

Hey there Quillon, your raise an interesting topic.

I agree that the most important thing is that a role-playing game let's you DO smart things and reacts with believable consequences.

But I also like when the game let's you SAY a smart thing and reacts with consistent story character reactions.

This is the key focus in Sacred Fire. But I don't take the approach of pre-set personality types, but simulate personalities and relationship in a detailed manner, you could say rarely attempted in RPGs. To do this as a developer, there is little room for else, so Sacred Fire is basically a story-crawler. But you get to solve each scene in many different ways. E.g. the 20 minute demo on Steam has 16 different ways how to solve an ambush situation.

To answer your question about narrative budget costs as a developer - yes, the workload this adds is significant, but what you propose is cost-effective.

 

[Quillon]

Alpha Protocol did this perfectly. They didn't try to accommodate every tumblrina who wanted to R O L E P L A Y. They said "We have 3 secret agent archetypes for players to inhabit, so make sure there's an option for each one." This degree of focus and consistency meant they had the resources to develop reactivity for each expression.

Fuck, why AP never came to my mind when thinking about this

 

[JarlFrank]

Alpha Protocol did this perfectly. They didn't try to accommodate every tumblrina who wanted to R O L E P L A Y. They said "We have 3 secret agent archetypes for players to inhabit, so make sure there's an option for each one." This degree of focus and consistency meant they had the resources to develop reactivity for each expression.

Yes. This is the way.

You can add a lot more than 3, but you have to keep it consistent and every writer needs to have a list of possible player personality types in front of him.
Then these personalities should be treated like skill checks: many dialogues offer skill checks in them for persuasion, bluff, seduction etc. You should handle the use of personality options the same way.
It makes sense to have an "angry" reaction here? Add it. It makes sense to have a "flirty" reaction here? Add it.

The way it is handled in most mainstream RPGs is that writers just slap whatever personality options they think of at the moment into the dialogue. There's no systematic behind it, and every writer (in projects with lots of writers, as most AAA and AA RPGs have) has his own ideas on which types of responses the player should get. This leads to incredible inconsistency where you can be a sarcastic asshole most of the time, but not in that one quest designed by that other writer who always plays lawful good and therefore didn't think of including an asshole option, even though it would make a lot of sense to have such an option in this particular quest. The central design document doesn't give any guidelines about this, so whoops, inconsistency time!

That's why having a central vision is important.

 

[DeepOcean]

I think selecting a few major archetypes, keeping dialog consistent with those archetypes with NPC reactions would be nice, you dont need to have lasting consequences for all those different dialog options otherwise you might end on a combinatorial explosion situation very fast, just a few unique reactions to some player style choices would be nice.

I think one reason why developers dont do it and just go for what they think is the most appropriate for the scene instead of taking consideration player expressions is because of voice acting budget, just allowing player expression without some form of NPC reaction, even something simple like a NPC saying you are an asshole, is pretty unsatisfying but this increases the voice acting budget, yet again, voice acting limiting RPG expression.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

Flavorful dialog choices can be entertaining. They could lead to different outcomes just often enough to keep the player paying attention. Perhaps 1 in 5 times, to pull a number out of the ether, though more often is great if resources allow it. A bigger problem in dialog imo is when you can freely cycle through every dialog branch no matter what you say and in any almost order.

 

[Quillon]

A bigger problem in dialog imo is when you can freely cycle through every dialog branch no matter what you say and in any almost order.

Yeah that's another one of my gripes: choice availabilty. I don't like there being all of the options when my character was acting in a certain way most of the game. There could be dialogue progression mechanic kinda like Mass Effect's paragon/renegade, when you act in certain way for some time the opposite choices should start to disappear gradually and more/heavier options start to unlock for the way you been acting... but I'm not sure about this since anyone can act/say stuff unpredictably at anytime so :/

...ooor a better system could be the success of your chosen dialogue, f.i. if you have been aggressive and not benevolent for most of the time you've been playing your intimidate attempts should succeed and your acts of kindness should cause distrust simply cos your character is or isn't used to such behavior that NPCs taking notice of it at that instance without needing some meta/previous knowledge about you(PoE disposition level reactivity).

A case of this might've happened to me in DA2 where this idea originated that my intimidate attempt didn't succeed on a "goody two shoes" playthrough where as in the prev. "agressive" playthrough it had succeeded. But I'm not sure if it was tied to some other stat or if the game was tracking my choices :fabulouslyoptimistic:

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

This is the key focus in Sacred Fire. But I don't take the approach of pre-set personality types, but simulate personalities and relationship in a detailed manner, you could say rarely attempted in RPGs. To do this as a developer, there is little room for else, so Sacred Fire is basically a story-crawler. But you get to solve each scene in many different ways. E.g. the 20 minute demo on Steam has 16 different ways how to solve an ambush situation.

This nigga dead-ass dropped an advertisement right in the middle of this topic. Whack.

 

[Dorateen]

If there must be dialogue options, they should be keyed to the different characters in the party and the player selects the response they decide to go with. There is no monolithic leader in an adventuring group, because the context of scenarios changes throughout a campaign. At different intervals it could be more appropriate for different player characters to speak up. Or even some party members replying at inappropriate times might lead to amusing exchanges and possible unexpected outcomes.

 

[Quillon]

they should be keyed to the different characters in the party and the player selects the response they decide to go with.

They should just speak up/interject. I don't like selecting dialogue options for companions, they should be their own characters...but that's just me.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

It was done fine in Arcanum, where some dialogue options just appears for characters with proper stats, without some artificial descriptions for stats.

 

[JarlFrank]

A bigger problem in dialog imo is when you can freely cycle through every dialog branch no matter what you say and in any almost order.

Yeah that's another one of my gripes: choice availabilty. I don't like there being all of the options when my character was acting in a certain way most of the game. There could be dialogue progression mechanic kinda like Mass Effect's paragon/renegade, when you act in certain way for some time the opposite choices should start to disappear gradually and more/heavier options start to unlock for the way you been acting... but I'm not sure about this since anyone can act/say stuff unpredictably at anytime so :/

...ooor a better system could be the success of your chosen dialogue, f.i. if you have been aggressive and not benevolent for most of the time you've been playing your intimidate attempts should succeed and your acts of kindness should cause distrust simply cos your character is or isn't used to such behavior that NPCs taking notice of it at that instance without needing some meta/previous knowledge about you(PoE disposition level reactivity).

A case of this might've happened to me in DA2 where this idea originated that my intimidate attempt didn't succeed on a "goody two shoes" playthrough where as in the prev. "agressive" playthrough it had succeeded. But I'm not sure if it was tied to some other stat or if the game was tracking my choices :fabulouslyoptimistic:

I came up with an idea long ago which I one day want to implement in my own personal perfect RPG (if I ever make enough money to dump into such a project).

During character creation, the player can pick from various personality traits. Those include things like pacifist, aggressive, flirty, chaste, sarcastic etc. Some of them are obviously mutually exclusive: you can't be pacifist and aggressive or flirty and chaste at the same time.
Those traits would both add new unique dialogue options to various situations, but would also remove some dialogue options other characters have.
Playing an aggressive character would remove ALL de-escalating dialogue options when an NPC becomes confrontational, but it would add a couple of provocative options even in situations where others characters don't have access to such options (because most reasonable people wouldn't act provocatively in the given situation).

This way, your character's personality profile pushes you into certain decisions without making it completely railroaded. As an added twist, you can get rid of a personality trait you don't like through certain events: maybe getting beaten up all the time instead of being the one who beats up as an aggressive character allows you to lose the aggressive trait because you learned your lesson. That way you can have in-game character personality development based on your actual actions and their consequences. A character who always wins fights and gets his way through violence won't ever lose the trait though.

Furthermore, when such a system is designed and decided upon early in the development process (that is, before any of the quests are written), quests and situations can be designed around these traits to make the most of them. Got a quest where you can infiltrate a religious society to get your hands on their secret knowledge? They're known to be a chaste society, so if you play a flirty character you'd want to avoid engaging in any conversations because your compulsive flirtatiousness might blow your cover. And because "flirty" being one of the possible personality traits that the player can choose to pick at character creation, both the player who created this character knows this can happen, and the developer who designed the quest knows this should be accounted for in the design.

Any quest can be approached with the question: "How would an aggressive/pacifist/flirty/whatever character approach this? What situations could he believably get himself into that can lead to trouble?"

Since you have a pre-established range of personality traits, and players pick them at character creation, you can plan the entire game around reactivity tailored towards these traits.

 

[Quillon]

Games out there already have all that perspnality/background tags & being dumb etc but inconsistency in these traits' use is too jarring. t I hate that people are happy with f.i. being a dumb character but only 5% of the time when writers accounted for it.

Also your future game will need to have: losing fights != game over and a getting locked in conversation options/suppress urge to say things mechanic then If such a system was in TOW; you'd have the option to just not participate in the mechanic, "press end convo option or voluntarily fuck yourself" :D

 

[rusty_shackleford]

This way, your character's personality profile pushes you into certain decisions without making it completely railroaded. As an added twist, you can get rid of a personality trait you don't like through certain events: maybe getting beaten up all the time instead of being the one who beats up as an aggressive character allows you to lose the aggressive trait because you learned your lesson. That way you can have in-game character personality development based on your actual actions and their consequences. A character who always wins fights and gets his way through violence won't ever lose the trait though.

outer worlds did attempted this

like everything else, in the game the actual implementation was shit

 

[JarlFrank]

Games out there already have all that perspnality/background tags & being dumb etc but inconsistency in these traits' use is too jarring. t I hate that people are happy with f.i. being a dumb character but only 5% of the time when writers accounted for it.

Also your future game will need to have: losing fights != game over and a getting locked in conversation options/suppress urge to say things mechanic then If such a system was in TOW; you'd have the option to just not participate in the mechanic, "press end convo option or voluntarily fuck yourself" :D

Of course my 50-page-strong "perfect RPG" design document also has things like non-lethal combat, initiating dialogue within combat (select the "talk" button and make offers to your enemies, which they may or may not accept, featuring both generic dialogue options like "Surrender now and I'll spare your lives!" or "Take my gold and leave me alone!", and more specific options during unique quest-related encounters, like "Just take this nobleman captive if you want, he isn't worth my life" in an escort quest), etc.

 

[deama]

I thought larian's approach in original sin 2 was a good idea, it gave you a relative option that you could quite easily use to imagine your actual response to fit niche responses.
Too bad most people for some reason didn't like it and they decided to drop it.

 

[Dodo1610]

Always thought Koror 2 did this extremely well. Your Exile has a fixed background but you can still define your character's motivation precisely within the light/dark system.

 

[Silverfish]

I'd like to agree, but Bethesda catered too specifically to my tastes.

 

[†††]

Just like immershun, I feel like abstraction works best; but this is a lost art in the age of hype and micro-catering to every single "identity" out there. The more you add and the more you account for, the more uncanny and wrong it feels. In fact, most of the time I feel like efforts in "player expression" are simply "dev expression", with hack writers trying to insert their own self-perceived wittiness disguised as giving power to the player.

Sadly, brevity and abstraction don't sell, and players love to feel special by being pampered with useless flavor text and repeated choices. Just like graphic fidelity and voice acting, it's a problem that is never going away as long as game makers keep holding on to a perceived set of features that they MUST include because they feel important enough.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

flirty and chaste at the same time.

Don't tell that to girls on dating sites, heh-heh-heh.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

You're not the first to suggest something like this. I've heard the suggestion that RPGs should have predetermined character archetypes, because you're not going to shift gears suddenly mid-playthrough. Though this was more in line with good vs. evil than charming vs polite vs asshole. I believe the argument against it was that this would be decline, though this was like ten years ago, long before I ever heard that term used or heard of this place. I don't actually see a problem with this, but like so many things, it'll be ruined by awful writers emulating their idol, Joss Whedon. I don't think its the best option, that would be Alpha Protocol's dialog system. Shame Obsidian never used that system again.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

without needing some meta/previous knowledge about you(PoE disposition level reactivity).

One of the things I liked quite a bit from pillows was the disposition system, but it's clear not all the writers understood how it was intended to work. It was meant to be player reactivity, not NPC reactivity. It was intended that as you got further in the game and the checks got higher that you'd slowly carve a personality out for your character.
This is, in effect, what is suggested in the OP but in a much more opaque way: you are slowly creating an archetype for yourself through a culmination of your choices, not a single choice.

[edit]
Pillows' issue is a bit of 'too many cooks in the kitchen' problem. The number of writers working on a game past the first writer tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of quality writing it has.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Maybe in the future, we could be able to develop a NPC AI that can hold 100% non scripted conversations. You would talk to a NPC just like you tak to a person in real life and the NPC would respond based on his personality, what he know, beliefs, genetics(aKa stats) and etc... that would be game changing for RPGs, as everything in the game world would be reactive and emergent, leading to infinite C&C and gameplay possibilities. Sorta like AI dungeon but AI dungeon still super predicable and dumb, just a prototype of what we could do.

So the hidden Holy Grail of RPGs is AI.

 

[Norfleet]

Player characters don't need an archetype. Player characters are all psychopaths, and psychopaths are chameleonic in their interactions, saying whatever they they think will best manipulate their victims. If you're willing to tell an NPC to go fuck himself, it's probably because you wanted to kill him anyway.