Community The New World Design Poll #3: Dialogue Checks

[Dr Schultz]

Dr Schultz Something on your side messes up the formatting of your posts. Seems like it inserts line breaks after each line (even within quotes), making your posts look totally blown up. Or do you insert those manually?

My bad :D.

Dark Souls is not an RPG as TNW aims to be. Neither is Witcher 3. Both are action games with a certain RPG part.

Not interested anymore in this kind of distinction. I could argue that Baldur's Gate is not a true RPG while Quest for Glory definitely is. But as I said, I’m not interested anymore in this kind of discussion. I’m more concerned about the quality of a game and its systems regardless its perceived genre.

Well, that's too bad, because a game is well defined by its genre.

In this case, the genre of the game is even the whole point of it for many people.

Well, it's not that I don't recokonize genres as useful tools of analysis. It's more like that I'm tired to dissert about "what is an RPG" without the basic assumption that tabletop RPGs and Computer-RPGs are two different beasts, not only in form but also in nature. Any honest discussion about the nature of the genre should start with the recognition that P&P RPGs are first and foremost multiplayer games where the ultimate goal is telling a cooperative story, while computer RPGs are (usually) single-player games where the ultimate goal is beating the game; and from that a loooong list of gameplay differences descends, or at least should descend.

Of course, I'm not saying that you are the kind of person that doesn't recognize this difference, but as a rule, I think that in a videogame forum it's more productive to discuss about what makes for a good videogame. After all, we are here because we love a certain type of videogame, not necessarly because we are P&P enthusiasts.

I personally did it SEVERAL times in XCOM (the old-ones and the new-ones, particularly the old ones), Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Knights of Chalice, TOEE, Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Disgaea, Telephat Tactics and a bunch of other tactical games.
None of these games strike me as particularly casual or action oriented, which is my way to say that the idea that action games are about skill while tactical games are about stats has never be true. And I mean NEVER EVER. Not even before computers were invented.

Ah, yes, when I talk about player skill, I am talking about action & twitch reflexes - which is what is afaik usually implied with that.
Of course, it requires skill to build a good character and make sound tactical decisions. But those are mental or intellectual skills, if you want - a lot of it is simply knowledge-, while action & twitch reflexes are of a far more physical nature.

I do not want any action & twitch reflex skills required in an RPG (that is not an Action-RPG).

Neither do I. Not in Vince's game at least.

Don't get me wrong. I DO think that Vince is perfectly aware that a dialogue has to be kind a guessing game in order to be "fun" to play. I don't think that preventing players to "win" even when they give all the right answers is the funniest way to achieve that.

I think what Vince meant to do is that he is going prevent players from 'winning' because, despite of giving the right answers, their character didn't give it the right way, which is what happens when the player character's skills aren't good enough.

I get it and it's a perfectly sound position logically speaking; but still I think it doesn’t makes for good non-combat gameplay. To me any major conversation in the game should be “winnable” without a single skill related line, at least at the basic degree of success. But, of course, it should be a freaking hard thing to do.

As for you question: given the text-heavy nature of his game, this passive skill of mine should work like this: The skill is high enough, you get a bunch of paragraphs in prose that describe in broad strokes the attitude of the character you are talking to, possibly at key points of the dialogue; the skill isn't high enough, you get nothing, or even better, you get misleading descriptions.

I'm not sure having misleading descriptions simply because my character's skill isn't suffice would be 'fun'. Maybe like how Empathy perk from Fallout 2 worked will suffice, but I think it's better to keep a singular narrative text version across different characters and let players use their own wits on solving the problems that is an RPG NPCs.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd love to struggle with a socially-impaired character that misinterprets everything about people disposition toward him. It would make a diplomatic-playthrough with this character one of the funniest experience I had in an CRPG.

 

[Black Angel]

To me any major conversation in the game should be “winnable” without a single skill related line, at least at the basic degree of success. But, of course, it should be a freaking hard thing to do.

But then, what's the point of making a specialized talking character that relies on non-combat gameplay skills (or rather, talking-oriented skills)? I think the right way to say it isn't how any major conversations should be 'winnable', rather that you should still be able progress pass through the major conversations irrespective of whether or not your character 'win' or 'lose' the conversation (i.e passing the skill checks or not), but obviously without succeeding to fulfill your character's agenda should you happened to fail the checks. One prominent example of this actually existed in AoD, the one I could remember the most is that time when Meru told us to get the Imperial Guards to join his side and break the siege perpetrated by the Aurelians; you can win, or lose, the conversation based on what agenda you're trying to fulfill, which is giving in to Paullus default decision to support the Aurelians or provide a counter-offer and make him choose Meru instead. Obviously, if you choose the former there would be no checks, but trying to provide a counter-offer you need to pass the checks; failing that, the game goes on but not according to how the players want to see it.

It might not be the sufficient example to fit your arguments, but I'm assuming that when you say major conversations should be 'winnable' without a single skill related lines, you're also implying that losing said major conversations would lead to combat-related scenario or whatever. But again, if by 'winning' means characters can fulfill their agenda whether or not they pass the checks (or by choosing non-checks related lines), what's the point of being able to make a character specialized in talking, then?

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd love to struggle with a socially-impaired character that misinterprets everything about people disposition toward him. It would make a diplomatic-playthrough with this character one of the funniest experience I had in an CRPG.

That's fine, but I don't see how Vince fundamentally changes his planned new system would achieve this in any way. Why not have a special character that does what you're describing, breaking the rules of the new planned system? Or perhaps, sorta like Dean Domino in Dead Money who gets pissed off at characters who succeeded in passing Barter checks, for example, maybe?

 

[Fenix]

To me any major conversation in the game should be “winnable” without a single skill related line, at least at the basic degree of success.

Well, this definitely sounds not right for me.
Maybe if you mean just "winnable main plot and failed in all subquests" but that require design Bethesda using - main plot is a meh and all interesting in sidequests.
That's bad design for me.
Maybe not winnable, not completly.

Obviously, if you choose the former there would be no checks, but trying to provide a counter-offer you need to pass the checks

Yeah, that's interesting variant.

 

[Dr Schultz]

To me any major conversation in the game should be “winnable” without a single skill related line, at least at the basic degree of success. But, of course, it should be a freaking hard thing to do.

But then, what's the point of making a specialized talking character that relies on non-combat gameplay skills (or rather, talking-oriented skills)? I think the right way to say it isn't how any major conversations should be 'winnable', rather that you should still be able progress pass through the major conversations irrespective of whether or not your character 'win' or 'lose' the conversation (i.e passing the skill checks or not), but obviously without succeeding to fulfill your character's agenda should you happened to fail the checks. One prominent example of this actually existed in AoD, the one I could remember the most is that time when Meru told us to get the Imperial Guards to join his side and break the siege perpetrated by the Aurelians; you can win, or lose, the conversation based on what agenda you're trying to fulfill, which is giving in to Paullus default decision to support the Aurelians or provide a counter-offer and make him choose Meru instead. Obviously, if you choose the former there would be no checks, but trying to provide a counter-offer you need to pass the checks; failing that, the game goes on but not according to how the players want to see it.

It might not be the sufficient example to fit your arguments, but I'm assuming that when you say major conversations should be 'winnable' without a single skill related lines, you're also implying that losing said major conversations would lead to combat-related scenario or whatever. But again, if by 'winning' means characters can fulfill their agenda whether or not they pass the checks (or by choosing non-checks related lines), what's the point of being able to make a character specialized in talking, then?

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'd love to struggle with a socially-impaired character that misinterprets everything about people disposition toward him. It would make a diplomatic-playthrough with this character one of the funniest experience I had in an CRPG.

That's fine, but I don't see how Vince fundamentally changes his planned new system would achieve this in any way. Why not have a special character that does what you're describing, breaking the rules of the new planned system? Or perhaps, sorta like Dean Domino in Dead Money who gets pissed off at characters who succeeded in passing Barter checks, for example, maybe?

To me any major conversation in the game should be “winnable” without a single skill related line, at least at the basic degree of success.

Well, this definitely sounds not right for me.
Maybe if you mean just "winnable main plot and failed in all subquests" but that require design Bethesda using - main plot is a meh and all interesting in sidequests.
That's bad design for me.
Maybe not winnable, not completly.

Obviously, if you choose the former there would be no checks, but trying to provide a counter-offer you need to pass the checks

Yeah, that's interesting variant.

I understand that talking of victories and defeats in a conversation is more than a bit of a simplification, but a necessary one in order to discuss this specific game system.
So, let's say that you "win" a conversation any time you get something useful from the character you are talking to, or any time you compel said character to do something he/her is initially unwilling to do.
We can assume that in really important conversations you have multiple degrees of success, meaning you can obtain a little or a LOT from your "opponent".
In order to get anything through diplomacy you have to say a certain amount of "right things", exactly like Vince is proposing, and your task as a player is figuring out what is what (right or wrong).
I think we all agree on that.


Now, what are the advantages of a diplomatic-oriented character in my (hypothetic) variant of Vince’s system?

- tagged lines that, properly used "against" the right character reduce the number of right things you have to say.
- a passive skill that points you in the right direction without solving the confrontation for you.
- a chance to get everything you can get from the person you are talking to.

Compare this with a Sheldon Cooper-like character that:

- has to collect all the info he can collect and say ALL the right thing he can think of even to get the bare minimum of a “victory”.
- get misleading hints about everyone's disposition toward him.
- can get only "partial victories" through conversations.

I could be horribly wrong about that, but I’m tempted to say that this hypothetical variant would make conversations “fun” for both “good” and “bad” characters, while preserving the importance of the character build.

 

[Drowed]

Wops, read the thing wrong. But this:

• "tagged lines that, properly used "against" the right character reduce the number of right things you have to say."

You are essentially offering something that reduces the dialogues. The dialogues and the debate should be the interesting point of the confrontation, so why offering something that reduces dialogue would be a good thing for the game?

• "a passive skill that points you in the right direction without solving the confrontation for you."

Sounds like handholding. Something like the 'Empathy' perk of Fallout? To me, this was one of the worst perks in the game, exactly because it trivialized most conversations.

---

Even if this is a "diplomatic character", this things sounds bad.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Wops, read the thing wrong. But this:

• "tagged lines that, properly used "against" the right character reduce the number of right things you have to say."

You are essentially offering something that reduces the dialogues. The dialogues and the debate should be the interesting point of the confrontation, so why offering something that reduces dialogue would be a good thing for the game?

I wasn't clear enough in my last post. What I was trying to say is: Tagged lines shoul give you an higher margin of error. I.E. you can "win" a conversation by using 2 times the "right" tagged line and 2 time the wrong (tagged/normal) lines or you can win the same conversation by using 4 times in a raw the right normal lines.

• "a passive skill that points you in the right direction without solving the confrontation for you."

Sounds like handholding. Something like the 'Empathy' perk of Fallout? To me, this was one of the worst perks in the game, exactly because it trivialized most conversations.

---

Even if this is a "diplomatic character", this things sounds bad.

It's a legit way to look at this issue, but following this line of thought any info your character has about his enemy in combat is also hand-holding. I prefer to look at this hypothetical skill as to some sort of "intelligence". You can either enter a conversation clueless or with a concrete idea of what is waiting for you.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You shouldn't know if you succeeded or failed a conversation.

Succeed or fail a conversation? I think that very idea is part of the problem with RPG dialogue.

All real life conversation that have a purpose (i.e. not just chatting with your buddy) usually result in success or failure. Asking for a loan, having a job interview, trying to weasel your way out of a speeding ticket, asking for a raise or promotion, trying to convince a co-worker from another department to do his fucking job, striking up a conversation with a girl, dealing with a career bureaucrat, selling something, etc - you either succeed or fail, usually without any middle ground. If you fail a job interview, they won't offer you a lesser position or a complimentary dinner for showing up.

Since you rarely discuss the weather in RPGs but try to get a person to do something he really doesn't want to do (get out of your way, switch sides, tell you what you need to know, do what you want him to do, etc), success or failure fit right in and you'd know right away whether you succeeded or failed.

 

[Ranarama]

you either succeed or fail, usually without any middle ground.

Because compromises don't exist, right?

If you fail a job interview, they won't offer you a lesser position or a complimentary dinner for showing up.

Sure. But only because you said as your premise it was failure. You don't get compromise on failure, you get compromise when you get a compromise. Well done for pointing out something irrelevant - that failure is failure.

On the other hand the world is full of interviews where the candidate has taken a position alternate from one that was originally being interviewed for, or negotiated the terms of the job. Not to mention all the parts of the interview you'd ignore like information gathering, which are results entirely separate from success or failure.

And of course, you may start a conversation without a fixed purpose. Because you are curious, or think there might be an opportunity, but who knows what it might be.

I feel sad for you that the world of RPGs you envisage reduces conversations to a single dice roll.

 

[Vault Dweller]

you either succeed or fail, usually without any middle ground.

Because compromises don't exist, right?

In my experience they're fairly rare outside of few very specific categories like negotiating terms, dealing with friends and family, or some high level shit like international politics. If you ask for a job, a loan, a promotion, a travel visa, a specific favor, to be admitted, to make a deal, to talk to someone, a girl out on a date, a ride, to help you move, etc, the answer is either yes or no. No compromises, no consolation prizes.

Here is how it works in sales, for example. You need to talk to a decision maker. Not as easy as it sounds. Success or failure, no middle ground. Reaching said decision maker unlocks a new quest: convince him that he does need whatever it is you're selling. Success or failure, no middle ground. Either he buys from you or he doesn't. Once the quest is successfully completed, THEN you can negotiate the terms and compromise all you want (odds are, you'll be the one doing the compromising, aka being fucked by the client and signing up the worst deal imaginable).

 

[Bocian]

try to get a person to do something he really doesn't want to do (get out of your way, switch sides, tell you what you need to know, do what you want him to do, etc), success or failure fit right in

Sometimes there are alternatives, like, a girl can always get a job through the casting couch.
On a serious note, a compromise option might be an interesting feature - if a skill check can't be passed because the PC is missing one point, or is one point too low in charisma stat to fully pass, it might trigger the alternative route. The interlocutor isn't fully convinced to the PC's way of thinking, but (due to high skill/charisma) sympathizes with him somehow, so decides to meet him halfway: "All right, you've made your point, but what is in it for me?"; "I don't need what you're selling, but I know someone else that does", and PC can pay the NPC (preferably a significant amount to highlight that it's not the optimal way) to get what he wants, whether would it be money or something else that's valuable, or in the second case, a different way of solving the quest that would bring lesser reward. To even open this dialogue line a character would have to have some skill in the first place, so it won't be like a fighting character can bypass challenges by paying everyone left and right abusing the excess of currency. The other idea is mini-quests as favours for key NPC's to convince them instead of fully passing the check, but that might be tedious to implement.

 

[Fenix]

In my experience they're fairly rare outside of few very specific categories like negotiating terms, dealing with friends and family, or some high level shit like international politics.

Game could have something like that - dealing with friends and family is dealing with your party, and politics - there was a lot of it in AoD.
But what it will add to a game - that's the question.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In my experience they're fairly rare outside of few very specific categories like negotiating terms, dealing with friends and family, or some high level shit like international politics.

Game could have something like that - dealing with friends and family is dealing with your party, and politics - there was a lot of it in AoD.

By international politics I meant equal status players, i.e. the UK dealing with the EU top officials isn't the same as some nobody dealing with the EU officials.

 

[Fenix]

By international politics I meant equal status players, i.e. the UK dealing with the EU top officials isn't the same as some nobody dealing with the EU officials.

Well in AoD it's a different factions, just is in New World. There is nothing bigger than those in their worlds.

 

[Ranarama]

By international politics I meant equal status players, i.e. the UK dealing with the EU top officials isn't the same as some nobody dealing with the EU officials.

Then you'd want to pick a better example, because the EU doesn't have leverage over nobodies as opposed to the UK where they gave the EU all the leverage in the situation

 

[Shadenuat]

being fucked by the client and signing up the worst deal imaginable

Would work great as a secret "fake" successful dialogue check. Game should also pat you on the back "good boi, you did well even with low dialogue skill".

 

[Haba]

If (by design) all of your conversations are fights that have a winner and a loser, then the current combat mechanics are pretty damn shite.

 

[MRY]

being fucked by the client and signing up the worst deal imaginable

Would work great as a secret "fake" successful dialogue check. Game should also pat you on the back "good boi, you did well even with low dialogue skill".

As I've mentioned previously, there's an amazing quest chain in Fallen London along these lines, which culminates in selling your soul to the devil.

 

[MRY]

You shouldn't know if you succeeded or failed a conversation.

Succeed or fail a conversation? I think that very idea is part of the problem with RPG dialogue.

Maybe a small part. My experience is that the much-larger problem is dialogue interactions where there is only a single outcome with tiny variants (e.g., "Oh, great hero, thank you for helping me for free!" vs. "Oh, foul knave, shame on you for asking me for money in reward for helping me!") or no outcome at all (e.g., "Here is lore. Would you like more lore?"). The overwhelming majority of dialogue forks in RPGs are thus meaningless from a gameplay standpoint, no matter how rewarding the writing may be. One genius of AOD was that it dropped the fluff from dialogue and focused on forks where one could succeed or fail so that it felt like you were actually directing, rather than receiving, the game's content.

That said, Vince and I have had a lengthy debate on the question of whether compromise states should be available, so I'm not totally on his side on this. But I'm very comfortable with the idea that as between "sharply delineated dialogue outcomes" and "acretive muddle of reputation points and hidden skill checks," I am for the former and against the latter.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If (by design) all of your conversations are fights that have a winner and a loser, then the current combat mechanics are pretty damn shite.

I wouldn't say that conversations, real life or otherwise, are fights with winners and losers. When you ask someone for something, you can either succeed or fail. Succeeding doesn't make the other person a loser. In my experience it's about reading people correctly and choosing the right approach. For example, an insecure client who's afraid to make a mistake should be handled one way, whereas an overconfident client should be handled a very different way. Etc.

Whether or not the proposed system is shite in general remains to be seen. It might be shite but I don't see a better way without doing a complete redesign and possibly ditching dialogue trees. If you have a better suggestion or specific criticism, do share.

 

[Shadenuat]

There is always,

keywords and making player type in correct answers to NPC questions and riddles