Shadowrun Shadowrun Returns Pre-Release Thread

[Lancehead]

If I'm playing a character with dump speech stats then of course I'm going to get fucked if I pick dialog options that rely on those stats.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying why even give you the option of saying something that doesn't cause harm? Imposing "bad options" on shitty speech characters is as efficient and well-designed a roleplaying game mechanic as providing particularly good ones to good speech characters. Just like not giving you certain options in combat is OK if you haven't specialized in them.

I prefer there be modifiers to NPC reactions based on PC's charisma, and then apply stat checks if he attempts to be charismatic to the NPC.

 

[Alex]

If people tell you your dump stat is being checked, you'll know to stay away from it. The only way you're going to have things backfire on people if you don't give them a heads-up. Playing modern games appears to have decreased your [intelligence]

I dislike games that show what is being tested before dialog options. But for me this is more of an aesthetic thing. I think dialog options should make it clear what you are attempting to do, though I prefer they do that through how they are written and placed, rather than through obvious pointing out of what it entails. I mean, it is kind of cool if it is not obvious what kind of characteristic is being checked unless you've been paying attention to what is going on. Like, maybe NPC A is angry with you because NPC B told him you stole his locket. So, next time he talks to you, and says good day, he might start a combat if your charisma is too low, and since your character has no way of knowing this is important, he shouldn't know it, unless he talks to NPC C who saw the whole thing.

But anyway, my point is that to allow the player to "roleplay", he should have a pretty good idea of what his character is trying to do with each options, even if he doesn't know what kind of odds and problems may come along the way. I think a more interesting way to make low attributes matter in these situations is to make different solutions to the same problems have different consequences.

Excidium thinks PS:T had bad dialogue. I think that's all that needs to be said here. I will now sit back and eat popcorn while he disciples of Avellone descend upon him.

Well, to be fair, the system in PS:T wasn't very good. Dialogues were great because they both allowed you to explore the setting and make important roleplaying decisions. But there was little to none challenge, and while character attributes mattered in this context, almost nothing else did. Classes, items, spells, abilities, these very rarelly mattered to the dialog. I think there is a lot room for improvement.

 

[Jaesun]

Would you expand on your statement of "and while character attributes mattered in this context, almost nothing else did. " Alex.

 

[Excidium]

Let me be more clear so you people stop twisting my shit around:

Hiding an active check is wrong because the player is the one that decides to have it checked in the first place. Do you have trouble understanding the meaning of the word ACTIVE?

And FFS I'm talking about the check itself, not its difficulty or result. By all means keep me guessing those when it is logical.

 

[Alex]

Would you expand on your statement of "and while character attributes mattered in this context, almost nothing else did. " Alex.

Well, it has been a while, but whenever a dialog options checked for something, it was usually a character attribute, like wisdom or intelligence. In fact, it was mostly wisdom and intelligence, with a couple of charisma checks and a few physical attributes checks. Everything else in the character sheet mattered only very occasionally. Special skills you might have learned only mattered if they were acquired as a part of the story, rather than the parts inherited from the AD&D game itself. Even that quest that requires that you learn a curse didn't require you to be a mage, because it completely bypassed the magic system of the game.

In effect, you ended up using two game systems. One for combat, and one for dialog, with the stuff that mattered in one side mattering little on the other, outside the basic 6 attributes.

 

[Roguey]

Because "active". Feel free to hide the outcome of the check, maybe the NPC knows you're lying but doesn't show any reaction but fucks up you later. But If I'm using my bluff skill or whatever then I should know I am because I chose to use it in the first place. That's why hiding checks is stupid. it's a band-aid fix for the obsidian/troika school of design where succeeding a skill check = instant win, no risk or effort required.

Not forecasting consequences is pretty terrible too.

Josh Sawyer always has the answers

Speech checks aren't used to see if an NPC can successfully lie to you. Also, we've already designed in the era of invisible stat checks. They lead to players believing that their statistics actually have no effect on conversations. They literally don't know what they're missing.

In Darklands' Expert mode, greyed out/unavailable options were completely removed. You'd enter an interaction screen and see one or two options, not realizing that there are a ton of other things you could do if you only knew this saint/had that potion/bumped that skill. It's great for people who've already played the game 10 times, but for other people, it removed the impression that those saints/potions/skills had utility outside of their normal systemic use.
...
I'd like to look into options to disable messages of that sort (skill checks, attribute checks, reputation gain and loss), but in practice I think many people will either a) not use them or b) use them only for immersion purposes and metagame around their absence.
...
Like I wrote, I don't have any objections to optionally turning things off, but I have no illusions about how most people actually play these games vs. how they say they want to play them. I've been watching them do it and dealing with the aftermath for ~13 years.

 

[almondblight]

You shouldn't get punished for having 1 charisma, you should get punished for trying to do shit with your 1 charisma.

That should be pretty easy to implement, just have two choices that are worded the same, one only available at higher charisma levels that leads to success and one only available at lower levels that leads to failure.

 

[Wizfall]

Very interesting update...again
But i'm not sure to understand what is you can hide in SR :
1- only the threshold of a stat check notification
2- the whole stat check notification process
3- only the dialog options you can't successfully pass
4- A combination of the precedent options
The most important for me would be the possibility to hide 2 or at least be able to hide 1.
I'm for hiding any stat check notification (not only the threshold) but not for hiding dialog option you have no chance to pass.
Unless when hiding dialog option make sense like : fallout 2 when you don't see some speech options if you have not a high enough Science or Medicine skill or even Speech skill when it's a complicated lie/bluff.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't know if anyone else has posted this, but this guy seems to be one of the main investors in the SR kickstarter, which gladdens me, to be frank; I quite enjoy watching his videos.

What?? Dude, watch the entire video. He's joking.

 

[Wulfstand]

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Spectacle]

Trying to smooth talk people up is an active effort by the player, if I rolled a dumbfuck of course I am going to stay well away of any active social check.

Dumbfucks often don't realize they are dumbfucks.

If the writing is good it should be possible to avoid this problem by sticking to straight, matter-of-fact dialogue choices. If you've got 1 charisma, avoid picking lines that sound like you're trying to be deceptive or charming.

It will actually be harder when you have 4 charisma, and trying to guess if that's enough for you to push your luck in a particular conversation.

 

[Jaesun]

I know it's still early on but can you give us an idea what totems are going to be in the game? Or frankly if you can let me know if my favorite totem of Bear will be in it?​

Current list is: Eagle, Bear, Raccoon, Cat, Coyote​

Subject to change without warning. ​

In case any of you wondered what Totems will be in SRR.

 

[Darth Roxor]

all bears are totems

 

[Ulminati]

Some bears are shapeshifters :3

 

[Roguey]

Got some more trolling material.

You can't kill NPCS (unless they're already hostile)

NPCs can be set to neutral and later changed to enemy.
You can get the effect you want via trigger but by default, a neutral NPC cannot be shot.

Your hired mercs can't level up

Mercs you hire are not upgraded. That's for your PC only.

 

[tuluse]

You can't kill NPCS (unless they're already hostile)

NPCs can be set to neutral and later changed to enemy.
You can get the effect you want via trigger but by default, a neutral NPC cannot be shot.

Disappointing.

Your hired mercs can't level up

Mercs you hire are not upgraded. That's for your PC only.

Don't see a problem with this.

 

[Kem0sabe]

It would be disappointing if the same mercs couldn't evolve from mission to mission as you hired them. Unless they are automatically balanced for each mission, the merc you hired for the first mission in the game would have little use in the mid to late game.

 

[Roguey]

You could upgrade and customize your hired mercs in the Genesis Shadowrun. SR unable to meet the standards of a 20 year old console game.

 

[GarfunkeL]

This is quite disappointing. One of my biggest gripes with the SNES Shadowrun are the static runners.

 

[Atomic]

You could upgrade and customize your hired mercs in the Genesis Shadowrun. SR unable to meet the standards of a 20 year old console game.

no game today can meet the standards of games made 20 years ago.

 

[Excidium]

lol what

 

[DalekFlay]

I was bored of random civilian slaughter 15 years ago.

 

[Roguey]

I was bored of random civilian slaughter 15 years ago.

I don't care for it either but it does hurt your freedomz when it comes to certain hypothetical quests. Like say you're talking to a person and you think "Okay this person is obviously going to doublecross me later" but nope you have to carry the idiot ball and follow the plot because the game won't let you kill him.

 

[Tzaero]

You should be able to give the possibility of double crosses through triggers.

We can set npcs to turn hostile through conversation.
You could just set it up for the player in a conversation, or maybe as the player is leaving the room.

 

[DalekFlay]

I don't care for it either but it does hurt your freedomz when it comes to certain hypothetical quests. Like say you're talking to a person and you think "Okay this person is obviously going to doublecross me later" but nope you have to carry the idiot ball and follow the plot because the game won't let you kill him.

You're assuming those people count as civilians. I assumed it just meant random people on the street.

We shall see I guess.