82 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

Zjarcal wrote...
Combat is exciting because the success or failure lies in my hands, not in the dice. Dialogue challenges should be based on decisions I made earlier, how much I read the codex, how I interpreted what the characters said, but NEVER on dice rolls.

Hate to break it on you, but sometimes, failure in combat does lie in crappy dice rolls. Just because they don't appear registered in the game log (there isn't one to begin with) does not mean dice are not being rolled in the background.

[Zjarcal]

Xewaka wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
Combat is exciting because the success or failure lies in my hands, not in the dice. Dialogue challenges should be based on decisions I made earlier, how much I read the codex, how I interpreted what the characters said, but NEVER on dice rolls.

Hate to break it on you, but sometimes, failure in combat does lie in crappy dice rolls. Just because they don't appear registered in the game log (there isn't one to begin with) does not mean dice are not being rolled in the background.

You're not breaking anything to me, you're talking about critical hits. At least that's something that makes sense within the context of a battle. Some blows will be harder than others, there's nothing illogical there. Most importantly, a critical hit will hardly ever change the course of a battle. If you really are relying on critical hits to win, then you're doing things very wrong.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:08 .

[mesmerizedish]

DPSSOC wrote...

I'm actually surprised that people see not being able to persuade an NPC because of poor decisions/bad rolls within the conversation as being worse than not being able to persuade an NPC because you didn't pick the top option often enough throughout the entire game. One requires you to reload a conversation to get the outcome you want, the other requires you to pretty much start the game over.

Exactly. As I've said, only giving you the option if you have a certain "dominant tone" is a terrible idea. So is an "I Win" button.

[mesmerizedish]

Zjarcal wrote...

If random numbers are involved like you propose, it doesn't matter if I pay attention the NPC's cues because I can still fail, so it's NOT the same thing.

That's demonstrably false. No matter how well-prepared you are in battle and no matter how good you are at adjusting on the fly, there's still a chance of failure, and it's not entirely under your control.

And no, crappy dice rolls are not fun to me in the slightest. NWN... trying to persuade Aribeth to not fight me and reloading over 20 times because of those stupid dice rolls was one of the most aggravating gaming experiences I ever had.

Combat is exciting because the success or failure lies in my hands, not in the dice. Dialogue challenges should be based on decisions I made earlier, how much I read the codex, how I interpreted what the characters said, but NEVER on dice rolls.

Decisions, codices, interpretation, etc. if correct, will get you far, but not all the way. That's not how it works in real life. You're asking for an "I Win" button. I don't understand how you can find that engaging, especially since I know you enjoy playing on harder difficulties.

[stragonar]

I like the idea presented in the OP, not a big fan of dice roll results in non-combat circumstances but the idea of a personality type skill tree or something of the like is appealing. What if previous dialogue choices had bonus or negative effects towards success and were added/subtracted to the character's persuasion skill options (independently) to decide the outcome?

I'm sure the two together would make for a greater sense of command of your character's story, especially if the bonuses or penalties were carried from previous actions with entirely different npcs from any given time in the game so long as the bonus/penalty is relevant to the current conversation.

The idea behind this would be to implement stat choices and story choices to relatively the same degree since the bonuses/penalties would rack up as you progressed, but naturally you would be increasing your different persuasion skills as well on level-ups to keep your options open. It kind of makes sens to me.

If you did play a character where you don't invest many points into persuasion skills then..naturally his/her actions will speak louder than words, and vice versa.

[Quething]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

If random numbers are involved like you propose, it doesn't matter if I pay attention the NPC's cues because I can still fail, so it's NOT the same thing.

That's demonstrably false. No matter how well-prepared you are in battle and no matter how good you are at adjusting on the fly, there's still a chance of failure, and it's not entirely under your control.

If this were true, the "I'm kind of a big deal" achievement would not be possible to earn.

There are enough fights in the average Dragon Age game that any random number generator would eventually produce a total party wipe for any player, no matter how skilled, if it functioned as you describe. This is flatly not the case in either Dragon Age game, as it's quite possible for players of sufficient skill to run through either game on a no-reload, no-death run. People on the strat boards can kill the Rock Wraith in under a minute; there is no chance of failure for the player in that combat, hidden dice rolls not withstanding.

Modifié par Quething, 05 octobre 2011 - 03:41 .

[mesmerizedish]

Quething wrote...

If this were true, the "I'm kind of a big deal" achievement would not be possible to earn.

There are enough fights in the average Dragon Age game that any random number generator would eventually produce a total party wipe for any player, no matter how skilled. This is demonstrably not the case in either Dragon Age game, as it's quite possible for players of sufficient skill to run through either game on a no-reload, no-death run. Thus combat cannot carry the unsurmountable chance of failure you describe.

I don't know what that achievement is.

I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about. That someone can run through the game without ever dying absolutely does not mean that that same person could not die anyway. You don't really get probability, do you?

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 octobre 2011 - 03:44 .

[Zjarcal]

Quething wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

If random numbers are involved like you propose, it doesn't matter if I pay attention the NPC's cues because I can still fail, so it's NOT the same thing.

That's demonstrably false. No matter how well-prepared you are in battle and no matter how good you are at adjusting on the fly, there's still a chance of failure, and it's not entirely under your control.

If this were true, the "I'm kind of a big deal" achievement would not be possible to earn.

There are enough fights in the average Dragon Age game that any random number generator would eventually produce a total party wipe for any player, no matter how skilled, if it functioned as you describe. This is flatly not the case in either Dragon Age game, as it's quite possible for players of sufficient skill to run through either game on a no-reload, no-death run. People on the strat boards can kill the Rock Wraith in under a minute; there is no chance of failure for the player in that combat, hidden dice rolls not withstanding.

Eeeeeyup.

All chance of failure or victory is on my hands, not on randomness. That I may not be good enough to pull off that achievement without a few reloads is a different situation (I did get it, but I reloaded a few times due to me being a klutz), but every time I died I could pinpoint to where things went wrong and how that could've been avoided if I had handled things properly.

At any rate, this thread is starting to get derailed.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 05 octobre 2011 - 03:55 .

[Quething]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I don't know what that achievement is.

I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about. That someone can run through the game without ever dying absolutely does not mean that that same person could not die anyway.

Quite the contrary. If there were a chance that any player could fail, always, then it would happen. The sample size for combat across a game with this many combats, replayed as many times as the experts replay it, is simply too big. A one-in-a-million chance is going to crop up for someone if a hundred people hit the trigger for it four million times each. A quick browse around this forum will, however, show you quickly that there are many players for whom it simply does not.

There is a skill and preparedness threshold in the Dragon Age series beyond which a player can laugh in the face of the random number generator. That is as it should be. No system in a video game should ever cause a player to face critical failure and a forced reload if that player is willing to devote sufficient time and effort to mastering the system.

Modifié par Quething, 05 octobre 2011 - 06:21 .

[Foolsfolly]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

A persuasion challenge should be a conversations consisting of several (exact number could depend on complexity of the encounter) "talk points" (not sure what the dev term is; basically, any opportunity the player has to select a line of dialogue).

Each "talk point" is a roll for either Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate. The DC for each is pre-determined based on such considerations as the personality of the NPC and the actual content of the persuade choice.

The final outcome of the challenge depends on how many successes the PC scored during the conversation

The PC gets a bonus based on her "dominant tone." An aggressive PC gets a bonus to Intimidate, for example. Perhaps the PC gets a larger bonus distributed among the three based on how often she uses each tone; this allows for a PC who's often diplomatic, but can get mean if she has to, and offers a smaller bonus to her based on that.

There should be a "general" talent tree open to all classes that includes what used to be skills. It could include talents like "Compulsive Liar," which could grant the full bonus to Bluff regardless of "dominant tone," for example.




Simplistic example: Julia Hawke has a +10 bonus to Diplomacy and no bonus to Bluff or Intimidate.




Merrill: The mirror is driving me mad! I must talk to the spirit again!


       /(Diplomacy): We'll find some way that doesn't involve a demon, I promise. (DC 15)
      /
Julia---(Bluff): The demon's gone, Merrill. I killed it while you were sleeping. (DC 25)
     
       (Intimidate): Forget about the demon, or I'll shatter the mirror right now! (DC 15)




Julia uses Diplomacy and rolls a 9, for a total of 19. Success! Merrill agrees to hold off on finding the demon... for now.




A full speech challenge would consist of several such persuasion checks. Perhaps the player would choose an argument she thinks the NPC would be receptive to, and then chooses how to persuade him; she selects each argument from the wheel in turn until she's done trying to persuade him. The successes are totaled and he is persuaded or not.

Keep in mind that I'm totally pulling the DCs out of thin air, and the d20 roll is just out of habit: it could be a percent chance or anything. What's important is that there's a random element to it: my aggressive personality makes it easier for me to be intimidating, but there's still a chance at failure. You can fail a combat challenge because of bad dice. Why shouldn't you be able to fail a speech challenge?

Discuss.

Normally, I hate all kinds of persuasion in these games. They usually come out to mean this "Press a button which gives you the best outcome" which completely removes the choice from the thing. Why would you pick a side and lose someone else's loyalty when you can press a button that gives you both loyalties with no consquences?

That's not a choice. (This happens in ME2 to be exact.)

But that's how BioWare games tend to be. A button that gives you the best outcome each and every time.

And that's why, unlike many many people, I was not upset to see the coercison skill go away in DA2. It just meant that the choices may be better balanced in DA2 (turns out that's a bit debatable isn't it?).

But, Mr. OP, allow me to say this.

I like aspects of this system. Fallout 3's persuasion system was similar with the + Bonus was based on your skill level. The problems were dice roll meant that, yes, people just reloaded until they got the outcome they wanted. And when you maxed out your speech level you never failed a speech check.

What I like about this is the idea that it's a conversation. That each conversation has multiple parts where rolls are added up. The problem with this is, I can't see how you'd fail that many times when you do it like this. (You know your personality is Aggressive so you keep hitting the Intimidate dialogue options and then it's added up and you win).

At which point, you now have to ask yourself, what's the point of this system and not just having options to talk and an option to go hostile on the NPC? Which is similar to how DA2 currently has it.

I have no idea how Deus Ex: HR has it work. I know how Alpha Protocol had it work which was largely based on information you bought prior to the conversations and a little on your prior actions and choices. I liked the system other than the fact that buying dossiers felt inpersonal.

But if you had a system where it measured your actions (Say Person X has Mage leanings and you have made Pro-Mage choices prior then you now have some persuasion points with that person). I'd like it to be formed around our actions and deeds more than some skill to be persuasive.

Perhaps the kicker is the standard +Bonus around skill. Cunning for Persuasion, Strength for Intimidation, and gold for bribing.

That way our actions and deeds mixed with a stat help us earn people's respect or fear. And the choices generally should not be about "The Persuasion Choice is Always Best." It should be viable but so should non-persuasion choices.

[SkittlesKat96]

It might be a good idea. I still like the way DAO did it too though.

In DAO it prevents you from just reloading a save if you can't persuade somebody, most people just did this in Deus Ex Human Revolution.

Not that DXHR has a bad system, but the director of the game said that because of the way the system worked they couldn't really make the persuasion system in DXHR very effective.

They wanted to give players the opportunity to get big rewards and do bigger things with the persuasion system in DXHR but they couldn't because people were just going to reload their saves if they couldn't persuade somebody.

So that is one of the positives of the DAO persuasion system, if you invested in persuasion you could do things like convince Alistair to marry Queen Anora and be king but let Loghain join the Grey Wardens.

I myself was an avid save reloader in Fallout 3 and DXHR if I couldn't persuade someone, I really couldn't resist myself. I did do it legit in F:NV though. 

EDIT: Foolsfolly's idea looks good.

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 05 octobre 2011 - 04:14 .

[DPSSOC]

Quething wrote...
If this were true, the "I'm kind of a big deal" achievement would not be possible to earn.

There are enough fights in the average Dragon Age game that any random number generator would eventually produce a total party wipe for any player,

 
If you were to depend entirely on the numbers yes.  If you just put a party up against random numbers, no companion AI or player input, you would eventually run into a total wipe out.  I don't know that there's enough fights in either Dragon Age games though to cover every possibile run.  Let's say you had a one on one fight where both opponents deal equal damage and the to-hit chance for each is 50%.  For the sake of this example each character has 100 hp and deals 10 damage (so min 10 rounds of combat).

1 - A has a 1 in 2 chance of hitting B
2 - A has a 1 in 2 chance of hitting B, 1 in 4 of 2 consequtive hits (1 in 2 x 1 in 2)
3 - 1 in 8 for 3
4 - 1 in 16
5 - 1 in 32
6 - 1 in 64
7 - 1 in 128
8 - 1 in 256
9 - 1 in 512
10 - 1 in 1,024

That's A doing 100 points of damage to B in 10 rounds one time out of 1,024.  This does not account for A's chance to avoid damage (even avoiding one round of damage would make it 1 in 2,048).  Also that's just between two opponents.  Piling probability on probability adds up quick. 

Once you add player participation and AI however it's no longer a matter of pure chance and the possibility of a complete wipeout is even less probable (though still possible).  The mere ability to replenish health on command is a massive hiccup.  Chance is still involved and the possibility of a party wipeout regardless of player skill or preparation is still possible it's just extremely unlikely.

[Quething]

Foolsfolly wrote...

But if you had a system where it measured your actions (Say Person X has Mage leanings and you have made Pro-Mage choices prior then you now have some persuasion points with that person). I'd like it to be formed around our actions and deeds more than some skill to be persuasive.

Perhaps the kicker is the standard +Bonus around skill. Cunning for Persuasion, Strength for Intimidation, and gold for bribing.

That way our actions and deeds mixed with a stat help us earn people's respect or fear. And the choices generally should not be about "The Persuasion Choice is Always Best." It should be viable but so should non-persuasion choices.

I think for me the optimal way to do it would be as a "multiple paths to the objective" thing. Do you want to persuade your way into the king's chambers? Ok. Here's this complicated dialog with the butler, in which you have to accurately judge how he's responding to you, adjust your responses to him accordingly, know some of his secrets from reading the codex earlier in the game, and have some native persuasion ability due to investing in your character's persuasiveness at level-up.

Or, if you can't pass that dialog, because you didn't build your character right or you just kind of suck at the persuasion... "minigame" let's call it (though ideally it'd be an integrated main gameplay style), you can just hack all the guards to pieces, and your success would be dependent on your ability to respond to enemy combat actions and your chosen combat gear and your investment into your character's martial skill at level-up.

Or, if you have a stealthy character, you can sneak around the back and climb in his window, carefully avoiding the watch, and your success would be dependent on your ability to react to the motion of the guards, what you know about the castle layout, and your native stealth ability due to investing in your character's sneakiness at level-up.

So it wouldn't so much be "the persuasion chioce is always best," as it would be "the persuasion choice is an auto-win if you know how... just like combat has always been."

Modifié par Quething, 05 octobre 2011 - 04:31 .

[stragonar]

Rojahar wrote...

Filament wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Perhaps the kicker is the standard +Bonus around skill. Cunning for Persuasion, Strength for Intimidation, and gold for bribing.

I
have a bit of a beef with that, and it's the Gandalf scene in Bilbo's
house in Fellowship of the Ring. Strength isn't the only way people can
be intimidating.

Granted, he was intimidating a wee hobbit... but still. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png

I like how both the Chi stat and the physical stat in Jade Empire affected Intimidation. If stats were to effect diplomacy, I think both Strength and Magic should offer intimidation. Not only that, but different scenes depending on if you're a Mage or not. Have the PC conjure a fireball in her hand, and the person react. "Oh ****! You're a mage? OK! OK! Don't hurt me!"

Don't forget the failure scene where the guy spits in the mage's hand to put out his fireball.

[Quething]

DPSSOC wrote...
 
If you were to depend entirely on the numbers yes.  If you just put a party up against random numbers, no companion AI or player input, you would eventually run into a total wipe out.  I don't know that there's enough fights in either Dragon Age games though to cover every possibile run.  Let's say you had a one on one fight where both opponents deal equal damage and the to-hit chance for each is 50%.  For the sake of this example each character has 100 hp and deals 10 damage (so min 10 rounds of combat).

1 - A has a 1 in 2 chance of hitting B
2 - A has a 1 in 2 chance of hitting B, 1 in 4 of 2 consequtive hits (1 in 2 x 1 in 2)
3 - 1 in 8 for 3
4 - 1 in 16
5 - 1 in 32
6 - 1 in 64
7 - 1 in 128
8 - 1 in 256
9 - 1 in 512
10 - 1 in 1,024

That's A doing 100 points of damage to B in 10 rounds one time out of 1,024.  This does not account for A's chance to avoid damage (even avoiding one round of damage would make it 1 in 2,048).  Also that's just between two opponents.  Piling probability on probability adds up quick. 

Once you add player participation and AI however it's no longer a matter of pure chance and the possibility of a complete wipeout is even less probable (though still possible).  The mere ability to replenish health on command is a massive hiccup. Chance is still involved and the possibility of a party wipeout regardless of player skill or preparation is still possible it's just extremely unlikely.

The bolded doesn't follow from the rest, though. What you're missing is your acknowledged "preparedness" factor. Add to your formula the fact that a properly prepared player can have an ability that raises the hit chance from 50% to 100%, and guarantees the player strikes first each time (simplistic, obviously, but for the sake of example). Suddenly the computer simply can't win.

That's the situation you see in Dragon Age; tools are provided to the player such that the RNG is made irrelevant by sufficiently expert use of said tools.

Modifié par Quething, 05 octobre 2011 - 04:26 .

[Foolsfolly]

Filament wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Perhaps the kicker is the standard +Bonus around skill. Cunning for Persuasion, Strength for Intimidation, and gold for bribing.

I have a bit of a beef with that, and it's the Gandalf scene in Bilbo's house in Fellowship of the Ring. Strength isn't the only way people can be intimidating.

Granted, he was intimidating a wee hobbit... but still.

That's very true and it's got me thinking that the best way for Intimidation is for it to be the core attribute of the class.

Strength for the Warrior, Dexterity for the Rogue (since Cunning is otherwise used), and Magic for the Mage. Having a high attribute here would help prove that you're the strongest/best shot/most power of your class. The intimidation dialogue could mirror these things.

Simple dialogue:

Warrior- Do it or I'll cleave you in two.
Rogue- If you don't do it. I'll come and visit you and you won't see me coming.
Mage- ::fist is engulfed in flame:: We really having this conversation?

@Quething

So it wouldn't so much be "the persuasion chioce is always best," as it would be "the persuasion choice is an auto-win if you know how... just like combat has always been."

I love multiple paths to victory and that's really the direction DA3 should start looking into more. And yeah, I dislike how combat is always a best case scenario too. I'd like our actions to have more reactions. And if you're a violent thug who lets your sword do your talking for you there should be benefits and consquences for that. I'd love to see someone react differently because you always choose combat.

And I'd love to see things go worse if you go combat instead. Like you're hired out or otherwise tasked to kill some minor lording. You go to their base and fight your way in and in the process alert the guards which causes the lordling to escape while you're battling. The mission is failed but you don't reload and try again. Instead an optional quest is triggered where this Lordling is now using this attack to muster support. And you've got to deal with that mess you created somehow.

These are the kinds of directions I would look towards in a future DA game, personally. Give people the best goddamn role-playing experience you can give them.

[Quething]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I love multiple paths to victory and that's really the direction DA3 should start looking into more. And yeah, I dislike how combat is always a best case scenario too. I'd like our actions to have more reactions. And if you're a violent thug who lets your sword do your talking for you there should be benefits and consquences for that. I'd love to see someone react differently because you always choose combat.

And I'd love to see things go worse if you go combat instead. Like you're hired out or otherwise tasked to kill some minor lording. You go to their base and fight your way in and in the process alert the guards which causes the lordling to escape while you're battling. The mission is failed but you don't reload and try again. Instead an optional quest is triggered where this Lordling is now using this attack to muster support. And you've got to deal with that mess you created somehow.

I like this, but I'd be careful with it. You don't want to end up punishing a player for their choices; note all the "paragons get it way too good" threads in the ME forums.

I think, as a designer, I'd rig it so you could have, say, the three basic options for solutions (diplomacy/stealth/combat), and could build a character who'd be excellent at two of the three, even on Nightmare. Then all important/difficult challenges (not all challenges, but definitely the big ones) would have at least two of the three methods available for the solution. Thus, in a situation where combat is a 'bad' idea, if you're good at combat and suck at diplomacy, you're not screwed; you can still get the solution you want by going stealth. On the other hand, if you want to get the lordling mad because that suits your roleplay this time around, you can go combat anyway.

[DPSSOC]

Quething wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Once you add player participation and AI however it's no longer a matter of pure chance and the possibility of a complete wipeout is even less probable (though still possible).  The mere ability to replenish health on command is a massive hiccup. Chance is still involved and the possibility of a party wipeout regardless of player skill or preparation is still possible it's just extremely unlikely.

The bolded doesn't follow from the rest, though. What you're missing is your acknowledged "preparedness" factor. Add to your formula the fact that a properly prepared player can have an ability that raises the hit chance from 50% to 100%, and guarantees the player strikes first each time (simplistic, obviously, but for the sake of example). Suddenly the computer simply can't win.

That's the situation you see in Dragon Age; tools are provided to the player such that the RNG is made irrelevant by sufficiently expert use of said tools.

I apoligize it's 12:30 in the morning (I really should be getting to sleep) and I couldn't think of a better word than extremely.  When I say extremely I'm talking you could play the game every hour of every day for the rest of your life and it not happen.  It's a minute though non-zero possibility because the games mechanics, to a degree, rely on chance.

[Quething]

DPSSOC wrote...

I apoligize it's 12:30 in the morning (I really should be getting to sleep) and I couldn't think of a better word than extremely.  When I say extremely I'm talking you could play the game every hour of every day for the rest of your life and it not happen.  It's a minute though non-zero possibility because the games mechanics, to a degree, rely on chance.

Fair enough, if true. I'm not sure it is, given the player power curve (particularly with OP DLC items), but at this point, it sort of becomes a semantic issue, doesn't it?

I'll concede that it's completely possible that DA combat does have a non-zero chance of "failure regardless of skill" that's simply close enough to zero that no one in the playerbase ever has or probably ever will manage to proc it. But that's not what Ishmael appeared to be talking about; she seems to be referring to a high enough chance of failure that many people would regularly proc it, such that reloading would be a chronic phenomenon regardless of player skill and character build (hence my use of "if it worked as you describe"). If such a chance of failure existed in DA combat, it would be much higher than the non-zero chance you describe, and would have shown up by now.

So ok. I'll amend my statement, which was confusingly phrased, which was sloppy of me, for which I apologize. A chance of failure such as the OP describes cannot exist in the DA combat system as we now see it; it is disproven by the ability of skilled players to consistently, repeatedly, and without fail perform thirty-second boss kills, a level of reliable overkill that would not be possible if the RNG's impact were more than effectively zero at high levels of player talent.

Modifié par Quething, 05 octobre 2011 - 05:13 .

[Foolsfolly]

Quething wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

I love multiple paths to victory and that's really the direction DA3 should start looking into more. And yeah, I dislike how combat is always a best case scenario too. I'd like our actions to have more reactions. And if you're a violent thug who lets your sword do your talking for you there should be benefits and consquences for that. I'd love to see someone react differently because you always choose combat.

And I'd love to see things go worse if you go combat instead. Like you're hired out or otherwise tasked to kill some minor lording. You go to their base and fight your way in and in the process alert the guards which causes the lordling to escape while you're battling. The mission is failed but you don't reload and try again. Instead an optional quest is triggered where this Lordling is now using this attack to muster support. And you've got to deal with that mess you created somehow.

I like this, but I'd be careful with it. You don't want to end up punishing a player for their choices; note all the "paragons get it way too good" threads in the ME forums.

True, because when you punish a player that player will think that they've done something wrong (DA:O Approval system rewarded for higher approval and nothing for lower approval making losing approval points a punishment).

In this hypothetical situation where you failed to kill the Lordling your action results in a new quest that reflects on the lordling's escape. In the grand scheme of things perhaps this is referenced a few times but otherwise there's no real punishment.

If we reward XP per achievement instead of combat then killing the Lordling in one mission rewards the same XP as failing it and doing the next mission. Loot drops would be odder but since you failed the first mission perhaps you don't get a full payment in gold that killing the Lordling would give you.

Like all things it will take some serious thought and a few play testing. But I agree you don't want to punish a player because that tells the player that there is a correct way to do these things... and they're not doing it.

I think, as a designer, I'd rig it so you could have, say, the three
basic options for solutions (diplomacy/stealth/combat), and could build a
character who'd be excellent at two of the three, even on Nightmare.
Then all important/difficult challenges (not all challenges, but
definitely the big ones) would have at least two of the three methods
available for the solution. Thus, in a situation where combat is a 'bad'
idea, if you're good at combat and suck at diplomacy, you're not
screwed; you can still get the solution you want by going stealth. On
the other hand, if you want to get the lordling mad because that suits
your roleplay this time around, you can go combat anyway.

Exactly. A Diplomatic character could bluff their way into a one-on-one with the Lordling and kill him. A stealthy character could break in, poison the lordling's food, and escape. Or any varation on those things. So a diplomatic thief would have three options, and a diplomatic thug could have two options, and a stealthy thug would have two options.

It's all based on the player's choices. And not at all that punishing. Or what little punishment there is can be smoothed over.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 05 octobre 2011 - 04:55 .

[Sir JK]

I absolutely agree that persuasion should be a process and not a single "succed? Yes/no"-point in the dialogue. If all nit took to convince someone was a single sentence, then they shouldn't have been needing convincing in the first place.
A series of skill checks isn't much better though. Rather the skill check (if any) should be in the initiation of the argumentation and after that you pick your arguments and in the end the persuasion value is weighed together and used to determine wether you succeed or not. With some visible/audible cues wether you're doing generally good or bad. Perhaps skill ivestment by the player could add a small bonus to it, as well as the Tone (threatening to kill someone's children while being all nice, friednly and noble should be less persuasive, still a bonus mind).

If there's a RNG involved it should only affect how big the bonus/malus of every argument is. Making one differ between +1 or +3. Not outright determine success or failure.

Oh, and the main difficulty should be in the length of the conversation. Not a "difficulty value". Succees or failure should primarily lie in the player's choices and everything else should at best just influence.

(similarily, I'd say there should be sneaking challanges like these too).