Generally speaking, intelligent characters will ask intelligent questions, and characters with high wisdom will ask insightful questions. All in an effort to gather information and try to find out what's going on.
But sometimes it's fun to let your low charisma dwarf make a well-deserved nasty comment to an unsavory NPC, or have your party's Paladin give him a stern talking-to.
What this means is that in a given set of dialogue options, the player might miss out on some background information or useful information, in exchange for a bit of Party role-playing. This occurred to me because I am not necessarily forthcoming in story exposition, biased toward letting players figure things out for themselves, perhaps even to a fault. But it could be that in choosing certain dialogue options, one closes out others and might not receive some small details that tie plot threads together.
And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. For me, it reminds me of a PnP table-top session when we players are confronting an NPC. While trying to do some detective work, someone in the group would invariably shoot off their mouth and say something inappropriate. A good DM, and our DM, would often have the NPC react accordingly perhaps making the NPC take a hostile view of the party. And making things more... challenging.
I'll be using these Party-chat style conversations in the adventure I am finishing up for the next Community project. And once I get back into the Edinmoor campaign, these type of dialogues will feature prominently.
Harumph!
Further Musings on Party Chat Conversations
Débuté par
Dorateen
, août 19 2011 02:04
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 19 août 2011 - 02:59
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 254 messages
One thing with party chats is that they almost inevitably wind up being rather generic. If I create a party and it's the dwarf who has the high stat and gets the chat, he should sound different than an elf who gets the chat. Because I expect my dwarf to have a brogue while the elf not too. Yes, you can do stat+race, but it creates that much more writing. Same with alignment+stat. It's a tough conundrum. I do know Pain is working on some autotranslation stuff.
#3
Posté 19 août 2011 - 03:22
Dorateen
-
- Members
- 477 messages
kamal_ wrote...
One thing with party chats is that they almost inevitably wind up being rather generic. If I create a party and it's the dwarf who has the high stat and gets the chat, he should sound different than an elf who gets the chat. Because I expect my dwarf to have a brogue while the elf not too. Yes, you can do stat+race, but it creates that much more writing. Same with alignment+stat. It's a tough conundrum. I do know Pain is working on some autotranslation stuff.
The approach I take, is that the responses should be there for flavor, and tend to conform to Archetypes. But, then, I like archetypes.
I do see what you are saying, kamal. I believe there is a distinction between the player reading the dialogue choices, and then selecting a character to actually choose the response. So if you have two characters, both with an 18+ stat, the player can decide which party member is more likely to choose such a line.
No doubt, the party-chat system rewards a very diverse party. In fact, the more unique the individual party members, the better.
I'd be interested to see what Pain's autotranslation is all about.
#4
Posté 19 août 2011 - 03:41
Shaughn78
-
- Members
- 637 messages
I haven't done much with the party chat, as I find if very off putting that all the characters can basically say the same thing. To me it seems almost more like a type of power-play. If I make my 4 characters diverse enough, often through min & max traits, I can access the entire game content in one play through.
However, I do like the idea limiting and closing paths. It will make up for the complete access. If a party chat had three paths: complete info, partial info and next to no info it would make for a different type of play.This will be a bit more work, but if you go on first impressions if may help limit it. The first PC choice will start down a path and with no looping back it will cut down on a player ripping through an entire conversations.
To add to this some creative scripting can be used to open and close paths. Instead of going on individual checks like the game uses, some party checks could be scripted, loop through faction members. This will take some of your examples, but change if from the PC choices to the NPC. Your example of a paladin:
NPC (party check of paladin) - Righteous PC response only and require Paladin for that PC Node
NPC (drop through, no conditions) - Normal PC responses
If a dwarf or drow is in the party the elf NPC will not give the party some elven secret that perhaps another party could have gotten. Likewise a human settlement near an raiding orc camp will not give a party with a half-orc or grey orc the time of day. Have the NPC's culture and prejudices lead the conversation.
However, I do like the idea limiting and closing paths. It will make up for the complete access. If a party chat had three paths: complete info, partial info and next to no info it would make for a different type of play.This will be a bit more work, but if you go on first impressions if may help limit it. The first PC choice will start down a path and with no looping back it will cut down on a player ripping through an entire conversations.
To add to this some creative scripting can be used to open and close paths. Instead of going on individual checks like the game uses, some party checks could be scripted, loop through faction members. This will take some of your examples, but change if from the PC choices to the NPC. Your example of a paladin:
NPC (party check of paladin) - Righteous PC response only and require Paladin for that PC Node
NPC (drop through, no conditions) - Normal PC responses
If a dwarf or drow is in the party the elf NPC will not give the party some elven secret that perhaps another party could have gotten. Likewise a human settlement near an raiding orc camp will not give a party with a half-orc or grey orc the time of day. Have the NPC's culture and prejudices lead the conversation.
#5
Posté 19 août 2011 - 04:01
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 254 messages
I am focusing on writing the "critical path" of conversations, that is to say the default. Later I will go back and put in those conditional options, or simple a different way to say the same thing (goodbye versus just leaving). Once the critical conversation path is done, you can test and make fixes in one spot instead of having to make the same variable or journal or whatever adjustments to each optional line.
#6
Posté 19 août 2011 - 06:36
Lugaid of the Red Stripes
-
- Members
- 955 messages
Using custom tokens and an attached script, you can get really sophisticated in how the responses are put together. Using the example of the high-INT dwarf and elf above, you could use a custom token to insert a bit of dialect into an otherwise generic sentence, something like: "[Exclamation of surprise], this must be the [expletive] rabbit of Caerbannog! The [colorful description] beast reminds me of [former lover/beloved topiary]."
#7
Posté 19 août 2011 - 07:29
PJ156
-
- Members
- 2 985 messages
I think what you are doing with the party chat takes a lot of work Dorateen and I applaud anyone who takes it on.
Whenever I have played a mod using it I find it hard to be more than one character so I tend to answer only for myself. This would only not be the case if other party member could do things I can not. thus were I less bright than my magic user I would hope they would have a conversation string which took me in a more informed direction. Then I might search for it.
The risk for me is that it moves away from roleplaying and becomes more functional. Clicking through all available responses finding the best one for a given situation rather than taking them from the pc nodes could make things more strategy than intuitive.
It does more encourage party play though and thus the paths should be separted, the arrogant should have a different string to the diplomatic. The magic user should get different information than the fighter, especially if talking to another magic user.
Which goes back to my first statement. Done right this is a lot of work but rewarding if done well.
PJ
Whenever I have played a mod using it I find it hard to be more than one character so I tend to answer only for myself. This would only not be the case if other party member could do things I can not. thus were I less bright than my magic user I would hope they would have a conversation string which took me in a more informed direction. Then I might search for it.
The risk for me is that it moves away from roleplaying and becomes more functional. Clicking through all available responses finding the best one for a given situation rather than taking them from the pc nodes could make things more strategy than intuitive.
It does more encourage party play though and thus the paths should be separted, the arrogant should have a different string to the diplomatic. The magic user should get different information than the fighter, especially if talking to another magic user.
Which goes back to my first statement. Done right this is a lot of work but rewarding if done well.
PJ
#8
Posté 19 août 2011 - 07:59
rjshae
-
- Members
- 4 497 messages
Besides providing atmosphere and causing personality conflicts, to me the most useful aspect of a party chat is that it provides an opportunity to add side-quests. That usually requires adding in some character history, along with the need to win trust through dialogue. Dragon Age does a pretty decent job of this, although the added gift giving mechanism seems a little hoakie at times.
Modifié par rjshae, 19 août 2011 - 07:59 .
#9
Posté 21 août 2011 - 01:15
Dorateen
-
- Members
- 477 messages
Just to clarify, when I use the terminology Party Chat conversations, I'm of course referring to the dialogue system implemented in Storm of Zehir. The term Party Chat is also the designation used in the NWN2 toolset to flag such conversations under its properties.
I finally got around to uploading a couple screenshots for a more visual demonstration.
When questioning a bard about a murder investigation, here we have an intelligent, wizardly character trying to get answers through a methodical approach:
http://s124.photobuc...uestion1jpg.jpg
Then there is the Paladin, with his more lawful nature taking over, with the option to get right to the point:
http://s124.photobuc...uestion2jpg.jpg
Both yield different responses from the NPC, with the latter causing the bard to feel a bit intimidated and perhaps even more close-mouthed. But this is early in the game, so the consequences do not have a large impact on the resolution of the conversation. Again, it's more of a party role-playing experience.
Another thought, about seeing all the possible dialogue options via these Party Chat style conversations, especially with a diverse party. It is true that the player will see (depending on party composition) what potential choices there are to make, but in the end, only one character will select the option that drives the narrative. The most clear cut example is when there is a diplomatic path available to a party member with a high enough diplomacy skill, I have used this in several spots to avoid fighting. On a subsequent playthrough, a player might choose to select a more combative response to start a battle.
Opening up Edinmoor in the Toolset again, looking through the early conversations, I realize I was just starting to scratch the surface of potential. I think the later dialogues developed better once the story picked up, with more of a range of PC responses available based on the many variables. Throughout the adventure, there must be hundreds of dialogue options presented for different kinds of party members. I've been tempted to go back and create a spreadsheet to see which conditionals I used more than others, such as stat attributes, class, skill rank, race, etc. That's more of a curiosity, but it could help me write better responses in the future if I realize the conditionals I tend to neglect.
I know, not enough Monk choices.
Harumph!
I finally got around to uploading a couple screenshots for a more visual demonstration.
When questioning a bard about a murder investigation, here we have an intelligent, wizardly character trying to get answers through a methodical approach:
http://s124.photobuc...uestion1jpg.jpg
Then there is the Paladin, with his more lawful nature taking over, with the option to get right to the point:
http://s124.photobuc...uestion2jpg.jpg
Both yield different responses from the NPC, with the latter causing the bard to feel a bit intimidated and perhaps even more close-mouthed. But this is early in the game, so the consequences do not have a large impact on the resolution of the conversation. Again, it's more of a party role-playing experience.
Another thought, about seeing all the possible dialogue options via these Party Chat style conversations, especially with a diverse party. It is true that the player will see (depending on party composition) what potential choices there are to make, but in the end, only one character will select the option that drives the narrative. The most clear cut example is when there is a diplomatic path available to a party member with a high enough diplomacy skill, I have used this in several spots to avoid fighting. On a subsequent playthrough, a player might choose to select a more combative response to start a battle.
Opening up Edinmoor in the Toolset again, looking through the early conversations, I realize I was just starting to scratch the surface of potential. I think the later dialogues developed better once the story picked up, with more of a range of PC responses available based on the many variables. Throughout the adventure, there must be hundreds of dialogue options presented for different kinds of party members. I've been tempted to go back and create a spreadsheet to see which conditionals I used more than others, such as stat attributes, class, skill rank, race, etc. That's more of a curiosity, but it could help me write better responses in the future if I realize the conditionals I tend to neglect.
I know, not enough Monk choices.
Harumph!
Modifié par Dorateen, 21 août 2011 - 01:53 .
#10
Posté 25 août 2011 - 05:24
Eguintir Eligard
-
- Members
- 1 832 messages
Don't go too crazy in the turmish mod, I plan to follow people's formats for continuity and I don't have time set aside for 80 variable checks per line. I Can do a few for sure.
#11
Posté 25 août 2011 - 01:38
Dorateen
-
- Members
- 477 messages
Eguintir Eligard wrote...
Don't go too crazy in the turmish mod, I plan to follow people's formats for continuity and I don't have time set aside for 80 variable checks per line. I Can do a few for sure.
Heh, I'm trying to wind down the Turmish mod so I can send it over to ChaosWielder in September. I'd say I have some select conversations that I branched out to have many dialogue variables for different party members. The others, in the interest of time, are more narrow while still allowing a range of PC responses.
Harumph!
#12
Posté 25 août 2011 - 05:29
PJ156
-
- Members
- 2 985 messages
Here's a question on the theme of conversation choice.
Is it better to have more PC nodes or NPC nodes?
By which I mean can we get a better play experience by having the npc's respond dynamically or by giving the PC lots of choice. I'm thinking less here about party chat which I see as player choice since the npc input is not automatic, but more on cutscene type convo where the flow is dictated by the DM.
We have many tools to make this kind of thing happen, using custom tokens and fall thorugh etc. but it is hard work.
So is it better to have the shop keeper refer to your recent activities as you pass through the module plot or is it beeter for the PC to have a choice of how he says open up please (a trite example I know but you get what I mean I hope)
PJ
Is it better to have more PC nodes or NPC nodes?
By which I mean can we get a better play experience by having the npc's respond dynamically or by giving the PC lots of choice. I'm thinking less here about party chat which I see as player choice since the npc input is not automatic, but more on cutscene type convo where the flow is dictated by the DM.
We have many tools to make this kind of thing happen, using custom tokens and fall thorugh etc. but it is hard work.
So is it better to have the shop keeper refer to your recent activities as you pass through the module plot or is it beeter for the PC to have a choice of how he says open up please (a trite example I know but you get what I mean I hope)
PJ
Modifié par PJ156, 25 août 2011 - 05:30 .
#13
Posté 25 août 2011 - 07:21
Dorateen
-
- Members
- 477 messages
PJ156 wrote...
So is it better to have the shop keeper refer to your recent activities as you pass through the module plot or is it beeter for the PC to have a choice of how he says open up please (a trite example I know but you get what I mean I hope)
PJ
Oh, I definitely think there is reason to have both. I want an NPC to react to things done by the PC, and acknowledge changes to the game world.
But I also like to have many PC choices in dialogue. So for your shop keeper example, I like it if a dwarf PC can comment on the quality of goods when opening up ("Probably not as good as dwarven craftsmanship, but it will have to do. Hmph.") while a high charisma PC might offer a friendly greeting.
If there is some interesting feature about the NPC shop keeper, then there are likely various ways different PCs might address him. Say, for instance, the town blacksmith is a half-orc. I could see all sorts of quips based on PC attributes that might be made. (Condescending, intelligent PC: "Are you certain you know how to operate that thing?")
#14
Posté 25 août 2011 - 07:52
kamal_
-
- Members
- 5 254 messages
I prefer more npc variability over more player variability (if forced to choose) But shopkeeps shouldn't be commenting on how I did some sidequest two towns over. They don't even have to comment of quests at all, even just choosing randomly from a few intro lines is good.
- like any of my goods?
- I've got the best armor in town!
- I get my iron ore from the Cloud Peaks. High quality, makes for great shields.
Even if the player responses to all those are the same and the npc never comments on anything else, you've made the npc not a robot vending machine with just three lines.
- like any of my goods?
- I've got the best armor in town!
- I get my iron ore from the Cloud Peaks. High quality, makes for great shields.
Even if the player responses to all those are the same and the npc never comments on anything else, you've made the npc not a robot vending machine with just three lines.
#15
Posté 25 août 2011 - 08:17
PJ156
-
- Members
- 2 985 messages
I lean towards npc as well I think. I agree that both are good but I guess I am not so hot at coming up with variable PC nodes.
I think you get a lot of value from simple random greetings as Kamal points out.
PJ
I think you get a lot of value from simple random greetings as Kamal points out.
PJ
#16
Posté 25 août 2011 - 08:33
Shaughn78
-
- Members
- 637 messages
NPC nodes.
Having dynamic NPCs is a good thing. Even if it is just their intro line. Commenting on quest may be a bit much, unless the quest is relevant to that NPC or their area.
A few examples:
-If a PC left the last village they visited in ruins, then rumors should travel ahead of the PC. NPCs should hold some suspicion about the PC, unless they were enemies of that destroyed village.
-The dwarven smith may markup his prices if the PC is a half/grey orc, while marking them down for a fellow dwarf.
Using NPC lines gives the builder a little more control of the gamers experience. I use lots of NPC lines to make the game different. An example would be a succubus NPC I have, she has 5 different into lines based on the PC's gender and CHA. On any 1 play through only 1 of those lines will be seen.
Having dynamic NPCs is a good thing. Even if it is just their intro line. Commenting on quest may be a bit much, unless the quest is relevant to that NPC or their area.
A few examples:
-If a PC left the last village they visited in ruins, then rumors should travel ahead of the PC. NPCs should hold some suspicion about the PC, unless they were enemies of that destroyed village.
-The dwarven smith may markup his prices if the PC is a half/grey orc, while marking them down for a fellow dwarf.
Using NPC lines gives the builder a little more control of the gamers experience. I use lots of NPC lines to make the game different. An example would be a succubus NPC I have, she has 5 different into lines based on the PC's gender and CHA. On any 1 play through only 1 of those lines will be seen.
#17
Posté 25 août 2011 - 09:09
Lugaid of the Red Stripes
-
- Members
- 955 messages
The "not a vending machine" concept is interesting, in that what's really needed is a sense that the NPC is an actual character, not just a pre-programmed robot. The NPC needs to be variable (not always saying the same thing), responsive (aware of outside events), and independent (the NPC has their own agenda, they aren't just there for the PC). These things can be faked simply, with just a few different one-liners, or they can be faked using a complex system of custom tokens.
I tried to do the later in the Danaan Unvanquished, but I found that players, including myself, tend to prefer the vending machines. RPG's are supposed to be evocative of medieval society, but when it comes to buying and selling, we prefer the brusque efficiency of an ATM. Players didn't want to haggle, didn't want to chat up the merchant before they got a good price, they just wanted to offload their loot in bulk with a single click.
Would you like fries with that?
I tried to do the later in the Danaan Unvanquished, but I found that players, including myself, tend to prefer the vending machines. RPG's are supposed to be evocative of medieval society, but when it comes to buying and selling, we prefer the brusque efficiency of an ATM. Players didn't want to haggle, didn't want to chat up the merchant before they got a good price, they just wanted to offload their loot in bulk with a single click.
Would you like fries with that?
#18
Posté 25 août 2011 - 09:43
PJ156
-
- Members
- 2 985 messages
I agree and perhaps shops were a poor example choice. I certainly think that a shopkeeper can greet you with a different line each time and refer to things that have happened. It does not have to be a long dialogue.
In sheep and Stone you have a fight in the square, if it occurs by day then the shopkeepers feed back on it "I was just about to help you but you finished it before I could get there" sort of thing.
As much the shopekeepers, tavern girls and musicians I am thinking of principle npcs, the facilitators or even the companions. Rather than what can I do for you? there is more that can be done. I personally think there is more immersion to be gained from good npc dialogue than a lot of pc dialogue though clearly both have thier place.
Oh, hang on, I seem to have a fence stuck up my backside.
PJ
In sheep and Stone you have a fight in the square, if it occurs by day then the shopkeepers feed back on it "I was just about to help you but you finished it before I could get there" sort of thing.
As much the shopekeepers, tavern girls and musicians I am thinking of principle npcs, the facilitators or even the companions. Rather than what can I do for you? there is more that can be done. I personally think there is more immersion to be gained from good npc dialogue than a lot of pc dialogue though clearly both have thier place.
Oh, hang on, I seem to have a fence stuck up my backside.
PJ
#19
Posté 25 août 2011 - 10:48
Dorateen
-
- Members
- 477 messages
PJ156 wrote...
Oh, hang on, I seem to have a fence stuck up my backside.
Is that a possible NPC line? Here are some potential replies:
PC Druid: “What an unfortunate use of a good tree.”
PC Heal skill rank: “Do you require some sort of medical attention with that?”
PC Paladin: “I’ve also been told I have a stick up my…”
#20
Posté 25 août 2011 - 11:23
PJ156
-
- Members
- 2 985 messages
Lol ! 
Modifié par PJ156, 25 août 2011 - 11:26 .
