The New World design topic #3: Dialogue Checks

[Vault Dweller]

But there's also the shame of fallen Shraktlor, and his part in it. Da'akon might on some level want help, but he doesn't want to reveal his past or his weakness to the man who bound him into slavery, as the man often says himself, "It is not my will that you KNOW this."

Almost every interaction with the Zerth revolves around persuading, tricking or bullying him into revealing more of himself. Well you know that anyway.

I'm not saying that he doesn't want help, but that there are many levels to his torment, and most of it he doesn't want Nameless to know.

It's what makes him an awesome companion.

It certainly does and the dialogue about the Circles is fantastic.

Anyway, asking a friend to give you 20 bucks, asking a boss to take a few days off in the busy period, asking that same boss for a small raise, for a bigger raise and promotion, asking a cop who stopped you for speeding to let you off with a warning, talking a friend out of doing something stupid, getting a business loan, signing up a corporate client who said no to 3 other reps before - these are all examples of convincing someone. The main difference that determines the required skill level is the degree of resistance. Your friend can easily part with 20 dollars, the boss can handle a few days without you, the stupid friend might realize the error of his ways. The resistance is low, so just asking would do the trick in most cases. The cop has his quota, the loan manager might get fucked if you fail to make payments, the boss has plenty of reasons to say no to a raise request. None of these feats are impossible but they are much harder because there's a resistance to overcome and you have to offer good reasons and/or reassurances, which is harder to do with few words. And then we have people who are strongly opposed to what you're asking (the loan manager isn't opposed to giving you a loan but needs to be convinced; the corporate client who already said no 3 times doesn't even want to see you, let alone talk to you) and you have to work twice as hard to overcome that resistance and make that person even consider what you're saying.

 

[Neanderthal]

Agreed in principle and I'd also agree that there are charismatic folk who can sway the hardest held belief, I may just be tired of the constant screed of overly descriptive prose we've endured lately with Numenera and Poe. Then again AoD didn't suffer from this so it's probably the wrong thread to bring it up in.

I've always held Shakespeares phrase, brevity is wit, to be a good guide for both the written and spoken word.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

What neandarthal said.

Not only you have to convince him you are different then previous incarnations, but you also have to find right answers for the damage you did to him previously.
Sure, its not like trying to persuade someone completely antagonistic towards your character, but those are not that common in games either. And he doesnt want to be helped so much that you just drop a few lines and he goes "alleluia! Im healed! praise The Nameless One!" - you are tested. Dakkon does infact resist and wont be persuaded by any answer. He judges who you are.
And you only succeed if TNO has enough skills to figure out things and push Dakkon to reveal his secrets and you as the player read and understand what answers to give.

FFS, this is the basic knowledge about PST.

And again - this is not about convincing anyone "with just a few words".
THATS. NOT. THE. SUGGESTION. AT ALL.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And again - this is not about convincing anyone "with just a few words".
THATS. NOT. THE. SUGGESTION. AT ALL.

This conversation started with:

I can imagine a few situations in which a stoic might be heeded more than the verbose: Say we're reporting to a gruff, surly quartermaster to equip ourselves for a dangerous assignment. He might well respect the strong, silent types who barks out. "Phase Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." Demonstrating both knowledge and decisiveness, rather than a more flowery approach or wheedling. Though arguably that could be tied into a combat skill more than dialogue.

Or you could be trying to woo an old blood and thunder general, and a firm handshake and steely gaze might sell you better than more convoluted wordplay. "Only two types of talkers I've ever known boy, conmen and queers! Which one are you?"

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Yes... the suggestion was made for specific singular characters so it would fit with their personalities.
Not - everyone. And not as winning just by choosing any few words or any short answer.

As i pointed out several times already, but the facts just cant get through cognitive dissonance.

Lets go for another loop.

 

[vazha]

Immediately evident. It will be very clear when a person doesn't buy your arguments or bullshit. Nothing over the top, normal reactions.

Not sure I quite like it that way. First, the temptation to reload will be too damn high, at least for me, as I sadly dont have enough time to play it several times, so I ll try to squeeze the most out of one playthrough and if that means savescumming, well, I'm down to it. Second, in adult situations, pretty much nobody tells you yes or no straight away, unless your demands are not entirely unreasonable. For example, I've been pestering my supervisor here in the European Parliament, trying to prolong my stay, trying this approach or that and have yet to receive a straight answer (and no, it's not a guaranteed refusal, I know it as a fact). So I'd much prefer if the results werent immediately evident and instead relied on player's deduction skills and other side factors.

In your example you're a humble beggar dealing with an indifferent bureaucrat. There aren't many arguments you can make there and there's nothing you can offer to the bureaucrat, so there's nothing there to react to. He is just delaying the decision, probably because there's some paperwork involved.

When you're dealing with a potential client, for example, you have a lot more "tactical" options and you see the reaction right away (so you know when to backtrack and when to push forward). In fact, this reaction is vital and helps you determine the line of attack. It would be nearly impossible to sell anything without it.

I beg your pardon, sirrah? Beggar yourself . He has much to gain, and so do I, and there are others vying for that sweet sweet spot. I didn't say I was craving the window-cleaner vacancy, have I now? So its exactly right attitude for him not to say yes or no, to wait and assess his options and pick the one he can benefit from the most.

As for your second argument, it just reinforces my point, no? Nobody says yes or no in any tactical negotiations straight after you've uttered your first line, nobody is giving away their agenda through immediate reactions and in fact, "I agree" is the last word you'd want to say in talks over a contentious subject. No, you get a hint on what the other party would like to see done the other way, you counter it with your own paradigm, and so on until a consensus has been found. It might be somewhat different in the marketing field, I've never actually sold anything in my life, but I'm relying on my seven year-long attendance & reporting on highest lvl inter-party and inter-state affairs in Brussels. You can hardly find a better place to study negotiations.

This is actually an amazing interaction that sheds a strong light on the way VD thinks, writes and makes games.

A very reasonable scenario given by someone who is essentially a real world diplomat, interpreted in a very cold, rigid and unfeeling way.

Exactly. And I responded with what was basically the old "I see. Well, we'll call you if we decide on anything" approach, without even commenting on it. There was simply no point to argue on.

His approach to negotiations (the say what you need and judge by heir reaction paradigm) would work probably in war situations, which, I'll concede, is most probably what the game will be about, therefore might yet prove effective. But that's hardly diplomacy - that's basically coming to a negotiations with a grenade and threatening to blow yerself if they dont acquiesce to your demands. That's not gunboat diplomacy either - that's just imposing your agenda on someone through very real and imminent threat. In politiks and media, that kind of diplomacy would most likely result in somebody making a call to your superior and saying: "look, he's too difficult to deal with, can you send over someone reasonable?". I highly doubt this is the case in marketing as well - how often is it that you have an unique item to sell and get ONLY one buyer you get to convince?

That aside, I really hope there is some journalist wheeler / dealer character in VD's game. Every society, even dystopian one, would need (and make use of) press as a tool to manipulate and spin your angle. It even could be the clash of cultures: A British journo template whose only concern is money against a Kremlin type which has a thoroughly twisted, immoral, but still a code of ethics. Throw in some idealist, naive junior journo to get blown up or something and you've got a beautiful menage-a-trois set up.

 

[Vault Dweller]

His approach to negotiations (the say what you need and judge by heir reaction paradigm) would work probably in war situations, which, I'll concede, is most probably what the game will be about, therefore might yet prove effective. But that's hardly diplomacy - that's basically coming to a negotiations with a grenade and threatening to blow yerself if they dont acquiesce to your demands. That's not gunboat diplomacy either - that's just imposing your agenda on someone through very real and imminent threat. In politiks and media, that kind of diplomacy would most likely result in somebody making a call to your superior and saying: "look, he's too difficult to deal with, can you send over someone reasonable?". I highly doubt this is the case in marketing as well - how often is it that you have an unique item to sell and get ONLY one buyer you get to convince?

I worked in ad sales for 15 years. It wasn't diplomacy and it wasn't really negotiations. It was about convincing: convincing to set up a meeting, convincing that our product is exactly what the client needed, convincing to give it a try, convincing to do it now rather than later which is a code word for never, convincing to let us handle the account the competition is handling, convincing to overlook fuckups (they didn't happen often but every now and then the production would really fuck it up somehow), etc. You can call it the art of finding angles you can play. That's my experience and that's what I know.

I'm not saying or thinking that what I used to do is (or could work in) diplomacy. One can't negotiate international agreements the way I handled corporate clients, but you won't be doing that in the game either. For the record though, the problem you first described was between an employee (you) and a supervisor, which isn't diplomacy either.

To humor you with my ignorance and naivete, the 'problem' with diplomacy is that you're often (always?) dealing with people who have either no desire or real power to solve whatever problems you're trying to solve, which is why things drag on for years or decades or forever. Looking at the EU, for example, or the US government, it's hard to form an impression that it's a well-functioning system that has the best interests of its electorate at heart. You'd probably say that the alternative is much worse and you might be right about that.

That aside, I really hope there is some journalist wheeler / dealer character in VD's game. Every society, even dystopian one, would need (and make use of) press as a tool to manipulate and spin your angle. It even could be the clash of cultures: A British journo template whose only concern is money against a Kremlin type which has a thoroughly twisted, immoral, but still a code of ethics. Throw in some idealist, naive junior journo to get blown up or something and you've got a beautiful menage-a-trois set up.

That sounds like a very good idea and I'll try to add it if we have time.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

To get even more engagement make it a romantic menage a trois. Be original.
Just imagine all those persuasion attempts about who is going to be a wagon and who the locomotive.

And also add some NPCs who suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance and keep twisting whatever PC says into absurd overblown generalizations and or strawmans.
Make it realistic. Some? I really meant everyone.

 

[vazha]

That aside, I really hope there is some journalist wheeler / dealer character in VD's game. Every society, even dystopian one, would need (and make use of) press as a tool to manipulate and spin your angle. It even could be the clash of cultures: A British journo template whose only concern is money against a Kremlin type which has a thoroughly twisted, immoral, but still a code of ethics. Throw in some idealist, naive junior journo to get blown up or something and you've got a beautiful menage-a-trois set up.

That sounds like a very good idea and I'll try to add it if we have time.

Do let me know if you'll need any... prototypes.

 

[Twiglard]

Give 10 people the same script (what to say in a conversation with a potential client) and you'll get very different results reflecting their skill level.

That's not how it worked in AOD. Often the dialogue option was an elaborate argument that stood on its content alone. Then you passed or failed depending on skill value. It can work better if you include persuasion for short sentences explicitly appealing to emotion, not their own merits alone. You're overestimating animal magnetism a bit. Could you possibly be biased from your own experience? Also, how about:

1. [Streetwise] Fuck them over.
2. [Persuasion] Appeal to their honor.

Rather than AOD's style of describing the full sentence. In the case of failure, show an inept version only after choosing the purely descriptive version.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Give 10 people the same script (what to say in a conversation with a potential client) and you'll get very different results reflecting their skill level.

That's not how it worked in AOD. Often the dialogue option was an elaborate argument that stood on its content alone. Then you passed or failed depending on skill value.

Exactly. Because in most cases it's the delivery that matters. Saying things the right way, creating the right impressions. If we had more time and experience we would have scripted 3-4 different reactions reflecting your skill level.

You're overestimating animal magnetism a bit.

It's not about animal magnetism at all. The easiest and simple sales example is displaying confidence or certainty that the product is exactly what the potential client needs. If the client is talking to you, he is interested otherwise he wouldn't waste his time talking to you, but the reason he says no is because he's afraid to make a bad decisions. Etc. Another example would be dismissing the client's objections just the right away. Too weak and he won't be moved. Too strong and he'd get offended. Hit it the right way and you'd blast right through.

Could you possibly be biased from your own experience?

Naturally, but that's the only experience I have. I talked for a living, then taught others how to do it, then managed them, then managed their managers. I can't fix a car but I can buy one for half the price.

 

[Twiglard]

The easiest and simple sales example is displaying confidence or certainty that the product is exactly what the potential client needs.

Maybe my problem with AOD's checks is that it's often not even implied why the skill check is needed during the conversation. There are some examples to the contrary, e.g. "I have a ring..." in the Antidas conversation. Or the Assassin's Guild in Madoraan quest with a good description on how the Disguise check failed. "Show don't tell", and doing neither is worse when the implications aren't clear. When you have a dialog option spanning several lines and sentences that can fail for no clear reason, it becomes "gamey", YMMV. How about this, as if in a P&P session when badly rolled and roleplayed.

| Talking to the local boss you start to stutter and barely finish your sentence. It's evident that something's not right with your story. He puts his guard up and gives you a stern look.

| Doubt hits you as you speak. What if your argument isn't convincing? You look pale, then start scratching your head and pulling on your sleeves. Speaking to the US Congress Special Commission isn't as easy as you thought it would be. Goddamn bunch of crooks and liars.

Picking up passable lying skills isn't hard. I've read about "clusters" and generally the stuff people pick up subconsciously as liar-body-language. It's not THAT hard to fool someone perceptive, from personal experience[1]. Is it sensible for the same skill to govern asking people to do what they don't want, as well as the blimp outpost soldier entrance? The former is more about "selling stuff" as you mention, the latter about carrying yourself right, with the composure they expect.

Can work better if alternative lines for failure are provided, or the non-dialogue text refers to the difficulty for given PC, but PRIOR to selecting the line. Give the player some idea what level of competence is needed. Add a perception check for that. Hell, Numenera willpower stuff could work better if it wasn't so badly realized.

Then we have the case of Fallout 2 where you could just do more legwork. We were almost never cockblocked by a hard CHA and Speech requirement. Players don't want to lose content, but a game can be hard by proper design. Solutions can be non-obvious with multiple dead ends.

Finally, the "fail check and fail quest" design made me reload and think of what metagaming expects from the character. A lot.

[1] I was once covering for someone to prevent them from getting expelled from univ. Give a straight, strong answer, look them in the eye, resist urge to use or move my hands. The person I lied to was good at spotting a liar. If I was caught off-guard with having to lie then I imagine probably failing.

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Hell, Numenera willpower stuff could work better if it wasn't so badly realized.

Then we have the case of Fallout 2 where you could just do more legwork. We were almost never cockblocked by a hard CHA and Speech requirement. Players don't want to lose content, but a game can be hard by proper design. Solutions can be non-obvious with multiple dead ends.

FO and FO2 had plenty of gated content.

Picking up passable lying skills isn't hard. I've read about "clusters" and generally the stuff people pick up subconsciously as liar-body-language. It's not THAT hard to fool someone perceptive, from personal experience.

Really?

 

[Twiglard]

Then we have the case of Fallout 2 where you could just do more legwork. We were almost never cockblocked by a hard CHA and Speech requirement. Players don't want to lose content, but a game can be hard by proper design. Solutions can be non-obvious with multiple dead ends.

FO and FO2 had plenty of gated content.

What's gated for a 10 INT 7-8 PE 2 CHA character? It was a matter of 30-50 skill points at best. In AOD the gating is immense given quests don't grow on trees and there are no random encounters/trash mobs. Individual builds flat-out can't do some stuff. There are hybrid builds for max content and XP but that's a different level of metagaming than Fallout.

Picking up passable lying skills isn't hard. I've read about "clusters" and generally the stuff people pick up subconsciously as liar-body-language. It's not THAT hard to fool someone perceptive, from personal experience.

Really?

I haven't found it hard to lie to a person's face without them noticing (at least when being in the right frame of mind). It's even easier with half-truths and undue weight, etc. I'm not a particularly skilled liar, just Lying 101. Though I imagine some hypothetical "people pleaser" staring at their shoes having lot of catching-up to do.