Interview RPG Dot chats with DW Bradley

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Dungeon Lords; DW Bradley; Heuristic Park Inc.

<a href=http://www.rpgdot.com>RPG Dot</a>'s <b>Dhruin</b> got stuck in an elevator with <b>DW Bradley</b> and asked him a few <a href=http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=1062>questions</a> about <a href=http://www.dungeonlordsgame.com>Dungeon Lords</a>. Unfortunately, the exact answers are so terrifying, they can never be revealed. Instead, we are offered an overview of the interview:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Naturally, players will encounter a wide range of NPCs in their travels. There are around 100 detailed quest and merchant NPCs to interact with through traditional dialogue trees. Although <u>there are no specific dialogue skills or stat checks for dialogue (“we don’t want to deny players the opportunity to play the game as they want to”)</u>, Bradley promises the NPCs will have individual personalities and motivations... </blockquote>Hey, Dhruin, are you sure you've got the right Bradley? 'Cause this guy is an idiot. Don't use the phone book in the future.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>One of Dungeon Lords’ intriguing design decisions was to keep the main interface elements to an absolute minimum, with only a small health and experience bar on the playing screen. I asked Bradley about this design choice and whether players might feel they lacked valuable information. He responded that he didn’t want excess interface elements distracting players from immersion in the gameworld. “It’s all about what it’s like to feel you are in a fantasy world”, he said. “The game is built so player’s don’t need too much extra information”. </blockquote>I'm sure the most advanced dumbing down techniques were used to reach that effect.
<br>

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

<u>there are no specific dialogue skills or stat checks for dialogue (“we don’t want to deny players the opportunity to play the game as they want to”)</u>

What did he just say?! Doesn't that entire sentence pretty much contradict itself? :shock:

Oh, we're just gonna leave out some skills that players might want to utilize so that they can play the game the way they want to.

Huh?

I think you met up with his evil twin, Dhruin.

Yeah.... that must be it.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

This is why D.W. Bradley is an over hyped moron. The whole point of having dialogue checks for stats is to allow the game to flow in a manner based on the character's abilities and statistics. You're denying a player nothing by having skills and attribute checks for speech, you're merely allowing additional options for those who do invest in those skills and having quests match up with the attributes of the character. You're not going to ask a puny wizard character to pry open a safe, but you might ask a stronger fighter to do that, or ask a dexterous character to jimmy the lock on it. Likewise, you're never going to ask an imbecile to solve a riddle for you, but may ask them to do something instead that still results in the solving of that line of dialogue. That's the whole point of scripting speech like that.

If he doesn't understand something as simple as that, he's in the wrong genre. He needs to go ask Herve Caen to be in charge of Fallout Enforcer 2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What did he just say?! Doesn't that entire sentence pretty much contradict itself? :shock:

Oh, we're just gonna leave out some skills that players might want to utilize so that they can play the game the way they want to.

That's the way of teh futare! You don't need any skills at all, you just do whatever you want, totally unrestricted by some pesky skills and rolls. FREEDAM!!!

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Well, one things I absolutely hate in gaming is someone telling me how I should play the game that I paid money for.

Take Rollercoaster Tycoon for example. Chris Sawyer had such a hardon for keeping people from cheating at his game that he went to great lengths to try and stop it from happening. The end result was him making it hard for modders to have fun with the game. We bought the fucking game Chris. We gave you our money to be able to play this game, you fuck. Let us play it the way WE want to, you goddamn game nazi.

Okay, I'll shut up because I can go on forever about this subject.

The point is, if we pay for the game, we should be able to do whatever we want with it as long as it doesn't go against the EULA.

Okay, so it got a bit off topic. Sorry.

And dumbing down games to give us more freedom.... lol... what a concept.

 

[Kamaz]

I might sound like heretic, but having dialogues that do not check for your stats doesnt mean the game is bad RPG. Of course, in this case, it sure is dumbed-down easy-play RPG-like game, but having dialogues that do not mirror your skills is not allways "BAD BAD BAD". If the phrases can lead to different branches and cause different outcomes, plus, if the character is fixed - I mean - its not some generic protagonist, but concrete person that is heavily linked into game's storyline, then it is normal choice. Of course, if you have dialogues like "You! Whats your name and what are you doing here?" with three-four choices one is hostile, that switches combat on, other - smooth-talk option you can have with skill high enough and third threatening one if you have impression good enough and dialogue doesnt branch anywhere, its stat-check, of course. But if the outcome of dialogue is not going to be reached in next phrase, if there are many possible branches and many dialogue options that can lead to different outcomes just depending on what you choose to say - you may have three smooth-talker options every can lead to unique outcome - then it is OK to go by without stat-check.

So, its not that simple, you just have to tweak the whole game's design.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Dialogue trees are all well and good, but that's not really the point here.

The point is, he's saying they aren't going to include a certain option so we can play the game the way we want to.

No.

If you want to let us play the game the way we want to, then include those options because we want them. Or at least allow for extra dialogue options for people who have certain skills. That would be the most preferable way to do things. Instead he is talking shit. Plain and simple.

"No, you can't do this but you can still play the game the way you want to."

WTF?!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

<u>there are no specific dialogue skills or stat checks for dialogue (“we don’t want to deny players the opportunity to play the game as they want to”)</u>

What did he just say?!

He employed a version of the usual developer gibberish. I like this variant for a reason - it's pure, unadultered, false advertisement (Vault Dweller might recognize this as Fullius Bullshitius), and it's a perfect example of why the genre is mostly filled with redundant, trite rehashes or baseless over-simplifcations. Removing checks isn't going to deny players to play as they want to. It's completely ignorant to suggest otherwise, because wheter checks are present or not, I always have the choice of what dialogue line to choose from from the options presented to me. Removing dialogue checks is only making it so players will always get the same results to choose from everytime they play, over and over, as opposed to having the possibility of different ones each time they play it.

 

[Shevek]

One judges the strength of a given RPG system by how well its skill/stat system allows the player to define his character and how well said system is implemented. If the system only works for combat, then the rpg system is pretty weak. This is one of my main beefs with the BG series (though class did alter some things) - not Bio's fault, of course; I blame DnD. Also, I always felt Morrowind had a pretty weak rpg system due to how poorly the game implemented its use of non combat skills. Though I dont think we will ever get as detailed a rpg system as some of the older crpgsagain, it would be nice if a game came out to match Fallout sometime again in my lifetime. Anywho...

See, the "freedom" cop out this guy used could be applied to everything not just speech skills. If the guy really feels that way, he would be far better off letting all player characters do everything and not have any character advancement at all (in other words, make a action adventure title rather than an action rpg).

This guy is just a hype artist like that Fable lead designer.

 

[Volourn]

As much as I personally love dialogue checks, and it's always my prferred method in an RPG; as illustrated in Gothic 2, non skill checked free dialogue trees can work in building a good game atmopshere and still have role-playing. Gothic 2 is one of the better role-playing games out there that way since you can role-play your character 9though the combat is some of the worst ever thanks to the horriffic controls).

Like I said, dialogue skills is my #1 way; but the other way isn't completely hopeless.

 

[geminito]

As much as I personally love dialogue checks, and it's always my prferred method in an RPG; as illustrated in Gothic 2, non skill checked free dialogue trees can work in building a good game atmopshere and still have role-playing. Gothic 2 is one of the better role-playing games out there that way since you can role-play your character 9though the combat is some of the worst ever thanks to the horriffic controls).

I really enjoy Gothic 2 and think it is a great game, but I don't think the dialogue trees allow much freedom. You go through every dialogue option until you can't get anymore information from the NPC. And that's about it. Deciding on your class is a dialogue choice, but there's not much else.

Still, Gothic 2's dialogue is fine and helps to tell a great story. The game is hard enough, I don't need to hear "Sorry, I don't like you well enough to discuss that topic. Increase your Speechcraft skill and talk to me again."

 

[Bobbin]

If i'm not mistaken, Gothic did check your skills and especially the guild you belonged to. Merchants greeted you differently if you were a mage. Of course - that system isn't comparable to Fallout, but I often felt that NPCs reacted to my personalized character.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

as opposed to having the possibility of different ones each time they play it.

And THAT is how -I- want to play.

PHEER THE RANDOMNESH!

 

[Shevek]

As much as I personally love dialogue checks, and it's always my prferred method in an RPG; as illustrated in Gothic 2, non skill checked free dialogue trees can work in building a good game atmopshere and still have role-playing. Gothic 2 is one of the better role-playing games out there that way since you can role-play your character 9though the combat is some of the worst ever thanks to the horriffic controls).

Like I said, dialogue skills is my #1 way; but the other way isn't completely hopeless.

I say thats immersion - not roleplaying. Without a skill/stat check, it minus well be an adventure game.

 

[Whipporowill]

Why all the bullshit? Why couldn't Bradley just have said something like - "since the game is mainly an action rpg, we didn't focus on dialogue checks and skill"?! Eh, this guy is a weird one.

Also, the demo was canned, noone has heard anything about the Beta, the RPG Dot interview is the first sign of life in about a month - so I doubt the "combat game of 2004" will be out in 2004. :shock:

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why all the bullshit? Why couldn't Bradley just have said something like - "since the game is mainly an action rpg, we didn't focus on dialogue checks and skill"?!

Precisely. I didn't expect to see any real indepth dialogues, it IS an action game after all, but I hate when they try to justify their decisions with some bullshit like choices suck and cause headaches, or you can finally play unrestricted because we've dumped all the skills, or only faggots use darts and crossbows, so we are going to have macho bows only.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

As much as I personally love dialogue checks, and it's always my prferred method in an RPG; as illustrated in Gothic 2, non skill checked free dialogue trees can work in building a good game atmopshere and still have role-playing. Gothic 2 is one of the better role-playing games out there that way since you can role-play your character 9though the combat is some of the worst ever thanks to the horriffic controls).

Like I said, dialogue skills is my #1 way; but the other way isn't completely hopeless.

I say thats immersion - not roleplaying. Without a skill/stat check, it minus well be an adventure game.

I think this is true. I understand where Vol is coming from but roleplaying is pretty gone, or severely reduced, if the character is always capable of saying the same things over and over without restriction.

 

[Volourn]

"I think this is true. I understand where Vol is coming from but roleplaying is pretty gone, or severely reduced, if the character is always capable of saying the same things over and over without restriction."

No, it's role-playing. And, no, there are restrictions. You just can't spam the same chocies over and over again. If you piss someone off; you piss them off. If you refue someone's blackmail they'll threaten you. i have yet to see this come to fruitation yet but all signs point to yes. Dialogue may not have "persuasion checks"; but dialogue chocies are still important.

Top 10 RPG, and I'm early. It be top 5 if it wasn't for the horrid controls. Gothic 2 is no adventure game (though it is a game of adventure! :D ). It is a RPG. Do not besmirch it's gloriful name.

 

[Shevek]

Choice in dialogue is not a monopoly held by rpgs. Ive had choices in dialogues in adventure games and action games. RPGs are about character development and having that development be expressed in how the character can interact with the world. Many RPGs have character development affect combat, for example. In the absense of a skill determining your skill with x weapon or against y attacks, then combat is not part of an rpg system. By the same token, if dialogue is not restrained by a stat/skillset then it exists outside of the rpg system. You minus well label it an adventure element (isnt that what action adventure games are? action games with a focus on talking and story in them?).

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No, it's role-playing.

Absence of values determining what you can and can't do is roleplaying? Imagine Fallout without skill and attribute checks determining what you could and could not say in dialogue. Teh roelpalying = noes.

And, no, there are restrictions. You just can't spam the same chocies over and over again. If you piss someone off; you piss them off. If you refue someone's blackmail they'll threaten you. i have yet to see this come to fruitation yet but all signs point to yes. Dialogue may not have "persuasion checks"; but dialogue chocies are still important.

You're confusing the mechanic of choice and consequence with the (absence of a)mechanic which tracks what you can say or not. Deus Ex fits your example. How you handle some people or situations may have consequences, but you'll always have the same base choices presented to you as nothing intrinscially tracks what the character can say or not. This to me seems more akin to an adventure game where it's assumed your character can just choose whatever he pleases. If your character can excell at anything in a given field, its a bit redundant and not so much in favor of roleplaying.

 

[Volourn]

You are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Shevek]

You are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Volourn]

Okay....

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You are wrong. Deal with it.

LOLZ u cum from teh CODEX!!

If you're not going to bother to take anything I say seriously, specially replies, then please indicate this from the get go, as I have more important things to waste my time on. Seriously. I don't expect you to agree with me, but if the r00fles haven't clogged your brain fully, then please have the courtesy of not wasting my time by jsut spouting nonsensical one liners whenever you don't feel like backing up your claims or continuing the discussion. Its already hard enough to try and be active here and in other forums when I'm getting less time to do so by the week; I don't need it to be wasted even more by you.