60 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

It looks like we have no persuade skill in DA2, and that our ability to be influential/persuasive with party members/NPCs depends on our party composition and dialogue options rather than a persuade skill.  I'm generally looking forward to the game, but this is one of the gameplay changes I'm worried about for DA2.

Let's take, for instance, the option of talking a hardened Alistair into keeping the Warden as a mistress after he's crowned king.  It requires the Warden to pick the Persuade dialogue option and have points in Coercion.  Under the DA:O system, it's a simple numbers check of whether the Warden has the required Persuade.

In the DA2 system, it looks like the same situation would require the PLAYER to decide which dialogue option would be most likely to persuade Alistair.  At first glance, it's not a bad idea.  Axe the skill trees that had limited contribution to the mechanics of DA:O, and just base everything on dialogue options.  But it also has one other very important side-effect.

It makes roleplaying harder and metagaming more necessary, because the PC will have skills the player does not.  

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at reading people IRL.  But I plan on playing a character who is.  Under the DA:O system, I spend points to make my PC good at persuasion, then pick the dialogue options it unlocks--dialogue options which I the player may never have thought to pick.

However, there's no skill for persuade and no check in DA2.  Instead, the PC's skill relies on player knowledge skill, which may be lower.  So now instead of using the CHARACTER's persuasiveness, I have to use the PLAYER's metagaming in order to get the same effect.

It's not a huge quip, but it does pretty much break the separation between player and character.  I'm 100% ok with some metagaming (everyone does it), but since BioWare games hinge a lot on their dialogue and interactions, I foresee problems in DA2.  

Or it could be brilliantly implemented and I'm worrying for nothing.  That's also an option 

[Shepard Lives]

I don't think we're getting a system like that... or are we? Would be awesome if true.

[Taleroth]

We don't know that tones actually cause persuade-like effects. They may just lead to different paths through an encounter (talking someone down as opposed to fighting them), which is a reasonable expectation of presented choices. That doesn't become metagaming.

[Herr Uhl]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

However, there's no skill for persuade and no check in DA2.  Instead, the PC's skill relies on player knowledge skill, which may be lower.  So now instead of using the CHARACTER's persuasiveness, I have to use the PLAYER's metagaming in order to get the same effect.

It's not a huge quip, but it does pretty much break the separation between player and character.  I'm 100% ok with some metagaming (everyone does it), but since BioWare games hinge a lot on their dialogue and interactions, I foresee problems in DA2.  

How is that metagaming? Using the [persuade] option would be more metagame if anything.

Edit: As the point of it is to choose whatever the PC would have said, not pressing the "I win" button.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 23 février 2011 - 10:22 .

[Maconbar]

Doesn't the PC have lots of skills that the player doesn't? I can't cast spells, at least not ones that actually do anything.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Herr Uhl wrote...

How is that metagaming? Using the [persuade] option would be more metagame if anything.

The persuade option tells me that the character is using HIS/HER persuade skill.  That's the character's skill.  And it's flagged for the player so that I know which dialogue option reflects my character's persuasiveness.

Poking around all the options so I can find the persuasive one is me the player using my ability to reload the game over and over again before I find the option that I think reflects the character.  That's the player metagaming.

[eucatastrophe]

From what I saw, there really is no persuade mechanic. The story seems to have several outcomes, and the dialogue choices will guide you no matter what to your set outcome. Unlike Dragon Age Origins where the forks were myriad.

Modifié par eucatastrophe, 23 février 2011 - 10:24 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Maconbar wrote...

Doesn't the PC have lots of skills that the player doesn't? I can't cast spells, at least not ones that actually do anything.

*snerk*  Yeah, the PC does.  And that's totally fine.  The PC mage's ability to fling around spells does not depend on me the player knowing how the Fade works.  And yet the same PC's ability to be persuasive depends on me the player being insightful and persuasive, even if the PC would be better at it than I am?

[GunClubGirl]

I love persuade skills in RPGs so I will definitely miss that. Rewarding someone who chose to level up their speech or persuasion (as opposed to their other options) with additional dialogue choices is a good thing in my opinion. I think this way a lot of people are going to end up saving the game before every time they talk to someone and load the game again when they don't get the result they wanted, and I think that's a copout.

Modifié par GunClubGirl, 23 février 2011 - 10:27 .

[Taleroth]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

And yet the same PC's ability to be persuasive depends on me the player being insightful and persuasive, even if the PC would be better at it than I am?

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how they're doing it.  I don't think they're going to run you through a gauntlet of choices to test your understanding of character motivations and right responses.

Just treat them as if they're all persuasive.

[Kaeldorn S]

I do like persuasion skills, but I'd rather not have it spelt for me what option is 'the persuasive one'.

It's better if it's more subtle, when the response a character has to what I say is determined 'in the background', through calculations using that persuasion skill.

I actually like the requirement of a little insight into personalities of characters I meet in the games to figure out what they want to hear. It's challenging on another level from rolling stats. It was pretty well done in some of the dialogue in Origins, I found. Especially with Sten, whose line of thinking was clearly different due to the Qunari cultural influences.

Modifié par Kaeldorn S, 23 février 2011 - 10:34 .

[Herr Uhl]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

How is that metagaming? Using the [persuade] option would be more metagame if anything.

The persuade option tells me that the character is using HIS/HER persuade skill.  That's the character's skill.  And it's flagged for the player so that I know which dialogue option reflects my character's persuasiveness.

Poking around all the options so I can find the persuasive one is me the player using my ability to reload the game over and over again before I find the option that I think reflects the character.  That's the player metagaming.

Yes, but HIS/HER persuade skill might say something that is horribly out of character, at which point I'd say it is metagaming again.

All the options are HIS/HER skill. See it as something else than a skill check. Do what you think your character would have done and you'll get what reflects the character.

[Taleroth]

What babyface said.

[JamesX]

It is probably based on "affinity" and "alignment" like it was in ME series.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Taleroth wrote...
 I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how they're doing it.  I don't think they're going to run you through a gauntlet of choices to test your understanding of character motivations and right responses.

Just treat them as if they're all persuasive.

Hmm...I'm not sure that treating the responses as if they're all persuasive is really going to work.

Take, for example, the scene post-Landsmeet with Alistair, where a female Warden with high Coercion can persuade a hardened version of the character to keep her as a mistress.  In DA:O, the game flags the dialogue options like this:

Option 1
Option 2
[Persuade] No one can tell the king what to do.  (paraphrased here)
Option 3, and so on.

It's pretty obvious that the CHARACTER's persuasion skill will give her access to the dialogue choice that sways Alistair.  But take the same scenario and translate it to DA2's system.  No persuade flag--the dialogue choice that sways Alistair is now imbedded amongst the other choices in the dialogue wheel, and the onus falls on the PLAYER to pick it out as the persuasive option, rather than on the character to pass a persuade check.

Herr Uhl wrote...

Yes, but HIS/HER persuade skill might say something that is horribly out of character, at which point I'd say it is metagaming again.

That's true.  At which point I'd say just don't pick the persuasive option if it's horribly out of character 

Persuasion/diplomacy/Coercion/influence/whatever you want to call it has always been an important part of BioWare games, but it's also always been based on character skill, not player skill.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 23 février 2011 - 10:45 .

[AlanC9]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Poking around all the options so I can find the persuasive one is me the player using my ability to reload the game over and over again before I find the option that I think reflects the character.  That's the player metagaming.

That's the player trying to cheat, actually.

An honest player would make the best choice he could out of the options presented, and live with the consequences.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 février 2011 - 10:47 .

[essarr71]

The flip side of the argument is that having a persuasion skill can also be limiting. Having a role-playing choice (what pc - in my head - would say in a situation) blocked out because I didn't have the necessary "skill" isn't a good thing.



I'm fine with dropping the skill, in exchange for say having intelligence or wisdom stats play a role in coercion/persuasion options, as you could argue that you might be witty enough to think of a good response to a situation but your pc isnt - as opposed to DAOs system which, no matter how smart or experienced you were, it didn't matter when trying to work things out without violence.

[Taleroth]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
 I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how they're doing it.  I don't think they're going to run you through a gauntlet of choices to test your understanding of character motivations and right responses.

Just treat them as if they're all persuasive.

Hmm...I'm not sure that treating the responses as if they're all persuasive is really going to work.

Take, for example, the scene post-Landsmeet with Alistair, where a female Warden with high Coercion can persuade a hardened version of the character to keep her as a mistress.  In DA:O, the game flags the dialogue options like this:

Option 1
Option 2
[Persuade] No one can tell the king what to do.  (paraphrased here)
Option 3, and so on.

It's pretty obvious that the CHARACTER's persuasion skill will give her access to the dialogue choice that sways Alistair.  But take the same scenario and translate it to DA2's system.  No persuade flag--the dialogue choice that sways Alistair is now imbedded amongst the other choices in the dialogue wheel, and the onus falls on the PLAYER to pick it out as the persuasive option, rather than on the character to pass a persuade check.

You're assuming it's some sort of trick.

If there's an option to keep yourself as mistress it'll be "keep me as mistress."  Whereas the others will be "I don't care" and "go bleep yourself."  I think you're probably overcomplicating it.

[Merced652]

There is no such thing as roleplaying bro, it was all a bad dream or some ****.

[Maconbar]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Doesn't the PC have lots of skills that the player doesn't? I can't cast spells, at least not ones that actually do anything.

*snerk*  Yeah, the PC does.  And that's totally fine.  The PC mage's ability to fling around spells does not depend on me the player knowing how the Fade works.  And yet the same PC's ability to be persuasive depends on me the player being insightful and persuasive, even if the PC would be better at it than I am?

Actually this reminds me of a conversation that I had with a DM back in the early 80s when confronted by some stupid annoying puzzle. I argued that my mage with an int of 18 was a supra-genius and was significantly smarter than me. My character should have no problem solving the puzzle even though I couldn't. Jerk DM wouldn't accept it and I can't remember what I did.

[Aran Linvail]

GunClubGirl wrote...

I love persuade skills in RPGs so I will definitely miss that. Rewarding someone who chose to level up their speech or persuasion (as opposed to their other options) with additional dialogue choices is a good thing in my opinion. I think this way a lot of people are going to end up saving the game before every time they talk to someone and load the game again when they don't get the result they wanted, and I think that's a copout.

Same here , i always love playing the "Silvertongue" Rogue

[Sable Rhapsody]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's the player trying to cheat, actually.

*sigh* Maybe I'm not doing a good job of explaining it.  

Let's say for argument's sake that maybe I haven't read every codex entry and spent every waking minute examining DA2's lore.  And let's say I'm playing a mage, dealing with the Fade and its spirits.  My character probably knows that option A on the dialogue tree is a more informed option than option B.  I don't.  

Now I've got a problem.  Do I game the system so that I can find the option that an informed PC would pick?  Or do I pick based on my knowledge and leave myself with a choice that the PC WOULD NOT have made because s/he knew more than I did?

It's easy to avoid metagaming/cheating, whatever you want to call it, when the player knows more than the PC.  It just takes a decision on the part of the player not to use his/her advantage.  It's much more difficult to avoid when the PC knows more than the player.

[Taleroth]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That's the player trying to cheat, actually.

*sigh* Maybe I'm not doing a good job of explaining it.  

Let's say for argument's sake that maybe I haven't read every codex entry and spent every waking minute examining DA2's lore.  And let's say I'm playing a mage, dealing with the Fade and its spirits.  My character probably knows that option A on the dialogue tree is a more informed option than option B.  

Why are you assuming they're going to present options that are inequally informed?  Why would they do that?

You seem to think they're just trying to trick or test you.  How about they're all equally informed!?  And you pick the one that pursues the objective or tone you want.

Modifié par Taleroth, 23 février 2011 - 10:55 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Taleroth wrote...
Why are you assuming they're going to present options that are inequally informed?  Why would they do that?

Because they've done that in just about every BioWare RPG   I think if something's a pattern for that long, it's not unreasonable to assume it might be in the next game.

All of BioWare's RPGs to date have had dialogues in which some options are available to an informed PC and not to others.  Everything from INT/WIS/CHA checks in Baldur's Gate to persuade checks in NWN to Coercion, Survival, etc. checks in DA:O and Paragon/Renegade checks in ME2.  Think about it--if all the dialogue options were equally informed, what would be the point of having different dialogue options?  The inequality is what makes them interesting.

[Maconbar]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
Why are you assuming they're going to present options that are inequally informed?  Why would they do that?

Because they've done that in just about every BioWare RPG   I think if something's a pattern for that long, it's not unreasonable to assume it might be in the next game.

All of BioWare's RPGs to date have had dialogues in which some options are available to an informed PC and not to others.  Everything from INT/WIS/CHA checks in Baldur's Gate to persuade checks in NWN to Coercion, Survival, etc. checks in DA:O and Paragon/Renegade checks in ME2.  Think about it--if all the dialogue options were equally informed, what would be the point of having different dialogue options?  The inequality is what makes them interesting.

I am pretty sure that BW has indicated that new dialogue choices will open up based on your dominant voice.