6 réponses à ce sujet

[PJ156]

Skill checks in convos is what I am thinking about. For instance a diplomacy check.

Currently I test the PC node, so if the check is passed the option to use diplomacy appears on the list of thinkgs you might do, you may then choose to be diplomatic. The check is already passed so you get the exp and go down that convo string.

The upside is you know where you are as the PC but the downside is you see all the rolls you have failed floating above your head when you hit the convo node.

I could test the NPC node, so the PC node gives you the option to try to be diplomatic. Using fall through I can then have two NPC nodes depending on pass fail of the diplomacy check. This seems sensible but is a lot more work since we have a pass node and a failed node to write, also I feel the PC should be forwarned if the roll is hard to make or not (if you were trying to smooth talk a tough opponant you would know how hard it is going to be - I know when not to try it with the wife so I would have thought this translated).

Which way do you go on this, or is there another way?

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:30 .

[Shaughn78]

In some conversations I have used several conditions for skill checks. For the diplomacy check to be avalaible for the Player I use the skill rank check. If the player has a high enough rank then they can try to use their skill. Then the NPC convo has the success node with a skill DC check and drop through fail.

With the rank check you can also have a low and a high check for showing one of multiple nodes. If the rank < X the player could have the Diplomacy check that hints at the outcome (This one is going to be tough), and a rank > X (This guy is going to be a push over).



It is a bit more work, but I think the drop throughs add more to conversations. By having the check on the PC nodes there is no failure, you can say what ever you want and know you'll get the information.

[PJ156]

I like the idea of skill rank, this auto sifts the level of difficulty as you have said. I may consider that in my current undertaking.



PJ

[dunniteowl]

I like it. And PJ, just because you know basically what to expect from your wife doesn't mean you're going to have any idea what the Police Chief of an unfamiliar town might do. The whole experience of being with someone does make Diplomacy more accurate, but again, this presupposes you have a few skill ranks in Diplomacy in the first place.



I think using either method, depending on what you want to have happen should be something to consider. Sometimes you want the Player to have a good idea of what to expect (this is a very gentle form of linear railroading with possibly a switch track) and at other times, you want them to swallow hard and say, "Well, here goes nothing."

Both are quite useful in their own way to help move a plotline along, develop a character story, or to increase dynamic tension in the story. From the explanations given in both methods, I'd say they are about equal in terms of effort and as long as you know which way the story has to go, pass or fail, then it shouldn't be that much more work on the whole.

PJ, you ask some of the best questions. Your curiosity increases my learning, so thank you.

dno

[PJ156]

dunniteowl wrote...

 but again, this presupposes you have a few skill ranks in Diplomacy in the first place.

None at all unfortunately; got a few in bluff though.

I agree with you dno and I am also coming to the conclusion that both have thier place, particularly with the skill DC check in the mix too.

Thanks for the posts,

PJ

[Kaldor Silverwand]

I prefer that the PC lines indicate which check they are going to attempt. The player can then choose to take a chance or not. Then the NPC responses are based on the check being successful or not. This way the player can decide how they want the PC to speak in that particular situation while taking some risk.



Regards