66 réponses à ce sujet

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: CHRIS AVELLONE GETS IT.

[Allan Schumacher]

Withidread wrote...

The biggest problem with persuasion or speech skills is that most of the time they force you to sacrifice combat upgrades for them. I'm sorry, but, my character shouldn't be weaker in a fight just so I can decide my own character's personality.

I don't mind this because I find it to be a choice in the game that I'm okay with making.  I think what you describe is more a failure in how the abstraction works.  It IS an advantage with the "use to improve" style that was prevalent in games like Wizardry, Jagged Alliance, and of course the Bethesda games.


Though one thing I dislike is that a game like Arcanum, pretty much requires specialization, because only having the non-combat skills at half of maximum means you never pass ANY check.  Which is bad.  I think even DAO suffered from this somewhat (though it could be mitigated with additional cunning I think).

CHRIS AVELLONE GETS IT.

Avellone is probably my favourite designer.  Sorry Mike!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 avril 2012 - 05:22 .

[The Confidence-Man]

Withidread wrote...

The biggest problem with persuasion or speech skills is that most of the time they force you to sacrifice combat upgrades for them. I'm sorry, but, my character shouldn't be weaker in a fight just so I can decide my own character's personality.

How is that a problem? Being able to percieve and manipulate people's emotions or use reason and logic to convince someone of something should provide valid alternatives to fighting, something DA2 completely ignored.  

If they don't do this they're already off on the wrong foot.

[darrylzero]

Wulfram wrote...

I can't comment on V:B and Deus Ex because I haven't played them.

The world is about to be eaten by Dragons! And only I can stop them! This seems like a great time to learn how to smith my weapons. Of course, after a few days I can make them far better than anyone who actually makes smithing their profession. Though Skyrim gets a certain amount of a pass because you're supposed to ignore the main plot.

Stealth is a combat skill. When used as something else, it's incredibly tedious in RPGs because it relies on skill rolls and little else. And it fits not at all with Party RPGs.

Computer Use was harmless, I guess. Though it's fairly pointless, apart from giving you some slight reason not to use an all Jedi party.

I get your critique of crafting, though I think if you put certain smiths in the game that you could not become superior to, that would change the dynamic a bit.  However, I'd argue that the same basic problem exists vis a vis combat.  How in the world did your character become one of the greatest warriors/mages/rogues of all time in the span of months?  It's equally preposterous.  I suspect you view that as simply part of the genre therefore not immersion-breaking, though I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but it's an issue for me.  It's an issue I can live with, but it's an issue.

Ideally, for me, my characters would not be phenomenal fighters/mages/backstabbers.  Their exceptional qualities would have more to do with intelligence, creativity, willpower, street smarts, interpersonal connections.  I can deal with the fact that they become very good in combat by the end of the game (and part of me enjoys that immensely), but for me the idea of an RPG involves playing a role.  The character I mostly want to play is nervous about combat and not super interested in killing people (though neither is (s)he moralistic about it).  So, (s)he has to be good at something else.  

Also, keep in mind that your experience of stealth is subjective, not universal.  I spend entire games in stealth mode (OK, not quite, but you get the idea).  I can't quite explain why I love it so much, nor would I defend it as inherently fun, but it is what I enjoy in terms of gameplay (and a big part of what made V:B and Deus Ex so much fun -- try them, see if you like it).  If I couldn't use stealth in Skyrim, I don't think I would have kept playing it (let alone for the 150 hrs or whatever that I did).  I even played two characters, both of whom were stealth focused.  I couldn't bring myself to play a different way, because that's not how I'm wired.  Idiosyncratic, sure, but so is wanting to hack and slash your way through everything (or rain down destruction via magic).  

There may be more of you guys, but I found blundering my way into fight after fight in DA2 to be incredibly boring, whereas I would have gotten a lot out of trying to figure out how to avoid fights.  And there are a lot of things I loved about DA2.  I really liked the characters and the themes.  If I had been able to consistently attempt to avoid combat, I think that would have made all the difference in the world to me.  That's what I find fun.  Combat can be fun too, but it doesn't do nearly as much for me.

Withidread wrote...

The biggest problem with persuasion or speech skills is that most of the time they force you to sacrifice combat upgrades for them. I'm sorry, but, my character shouldn't be weaker in a fight just so I can decide my own character's personality.

 
You're right as far as deciding your character's personality goes, though I think that's something of a straw man, and I think you might even be right about intimidate checks.  After all, ability in combat should logically be closely tied to ability to intimidate.  But the ability to persuade is something else.  It takes talent and it takes practice.  (Ideally, it would even take leverage sometimes, which is why I keep talking about forgery, blackmail, and political favors, but I recognize this would be a real challenge to implement).

And I absolutely think that being skilled in non-combat skills should require a sacrifice of your combat talent.  What's more, I really want to make that sacrifice, a lot.  I want to play characters that are not crazy good at fighting and have to make do with other skills (just as I prefer to read about such characters or them in movies).

Maria Caliban wrote...
They could work well and make sense in Dragon Age if BioWare focused on problem solving instead of killing stuff.

 
Yes yes yes.  Please.  

Modifié par darrylzero, 24 avril 2012 - 02:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I know DA2 did it differently where it depended on the stance that your Hawke took, rather than an explicit skill.

For example: a Hawke known for being diplomatic/sarcastic would fail the attempt to bully someone into giving information (aggressive stance), but if your Hawke's persona was aggressive, it would work. Unfortunately I don't know how prevalent this is throughout the game, but it does seem like it's not all that well known.

I certainly didn't know that.

That's another failure of documentation.  These features need to be documented.  How else can players know what's going on?  The system you describe here has Hawke succeed or fail based not on what he says now to this person, but based on what he has said to other people who aren't here now and have possibly no relevance to the current encounter.

That's just about as counter-intuitive a system as I could imagine.  BioWare needs to get back to documenting their features.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 avril 2012 - 10:02 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I know DA2 did it differently where it depended on the stance that your Hawke took, rather than an explicit skill.

For example: a Hawke known for being diplomatic/sarcastic would fail the attempt to bully someone into giving information (aggressive stance), but if your Hawke's persona was aggressive, it would work. Unfortunately I don't know how prevalent this is throughout the game, but it does seem like it's not all that well known.

I certainly didn't know that.

That's another failure of documentation.  These features need to be documented.  How else can players know what's going on?  The system you describe here has Hawke succeed or fail based not on what he says now to this person, but based on what he has said to other people who aren't here now and have possibly no relevance to the current encounter.

That's just about as counter-intuitive as system as I could imagine.  BioWare needs to get back to documenting their features.

I second this motion! Documentation needs to be improved and better tutorials for those unfamilar with cRPGs.  I figured out after playing through the game a second time as a different Hawke there were certain responses that would fail based on choices in tone that I had made before.  I am not asking that you package the better maual with the game just make it available as a download or pdf on the disk.

[Realmzmaster]

darrylzero wrote...

Ideally, for me, my characters would not be phenomenal fighters/mages/backstabbers.  Their exceptional qualities would have more to do with intelligence, creativity, willpower, street smarts, interpersonal connections.  I can deal with the fact that they become very good in combat by the end of the game (and part of me enjoys that immensely), but for me the idea of an RPG involves playing a role.  The character I mostly want to play is nervous about combat and not super interested in killing people (though neither is (s)he moralistic about it).  So, (s)he has to be good at something else.  

I understand what you are getting at. Hawke was already a seasoned fighter having been a soldier in the King's army. Bethanyand mage Hawke has extensive training from the father. The dwarf noble and commoner had seen combat. The human noble and dalish elf had been trained in combat. The city elf was train in combat by his mother. The mage was different but had gone through combat in the Harrowing. All are skilled already before we get to mold them.

I think that if a mage is nervous about combat a spell could be miscast or go wrong and affect the party. If a fighter is unsure of himself/herself he or she may fumble their weapon or make an error in judgment.

You want to start with a character that basically knows very little about combat and has to learn to get good at it. A mage that has to learn to tame the magic. The character has to rely on other skills to survive and combat becomes a last resort.

[Xewaka]

Withidread wrote...
The biggest problem with persuasion or speech skills is that most of the time they force you to sacrifice combat upgrades for them. I'm sorry, but, my character shouldn't be weaker in a fight just so I can decide my own character's personality.

Choosing talking over fighting is part of the character's personality, and the build reflects it. How is that a problem?

In Exile wrote...
What we need is a better persuasion mechanism, not an "I Win!" button. Not to say that DX was amazing in this regard, but at least persuasion was an actual, active part of the game and not just "click win for best loot + dialogue!"

I enjoyed inmensely the dialogue boss battles. More games need mechanics like that, so that they can be refined through iteration and become even better.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 avril 2012 - 09:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Withidread wrote...

The biggest problem with persuasion or speech skills is that most of the time they force you to sacrifice combat upgrades for them.

Yes he should.  Otherwise you just end up with a character who is good at everything.  If there's no cost, then there's no meaningful decision to be made.

I'm sorry, but, my character shouldn't be weaker in a fight just so I can decide my own character's personality.

Not his personality.  His abilities.  He can want to be persuasive without actually being persuasive.

[Maria Caliban]

In an RPG where 80% of the content is mandatory combat, I'd prefer to separate combat abilities and non-combat skills. The cost for learning a specific non-combat skill would be not learning a different non-combat skill.

You can see that sort of system in Kingdoms of Amalur.

Here's a screen for the non-combat skills. You get one point to allocate per level. Here's a screen for one of the three combat ability trees. You get three points per level up to spend.

A system where they're all mixed together, such as fallout, works best in a game where large amounts of combat could be avoided.

I have no problem with some skills being more useful than others, but I dislike the idea that an entire group of skills/abilities/whathaveyou are less useful than others.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd be all for separate combat and non-combat experience, as well. DA:O had a somewhat similar vein with this in having the Skills and Talents being separate. The Skills also had combat roles as well, such as the Tactics Skill, or the Survival skill which allowed you to spot enemies on your map sooner.

That way, if you had experience from using a non-combat skill such as persuasion to avoid a fight, I couldn't then turn around and level up my archery or one handed skills, which is completely counter-intuitive to me.

I think a set number of Attribute points to allocate at the beginning of the game, with the option to gain Attributes in very small numbers through quests or purchasable potions would be a good way to mitigate some of the nonsense (like making Cunning necessary for a Mage just so they can have some defense). Something like the SPECIAL system for Fallout would work nicely.

Also, having Skills that vary based on class would be interesting. Pickpocketing and lockpicking for rogues, maybe something like scrying and enchanting for mages, crafting and Feats of Strength (like being able to bash open a door) for warriors.

On top of a whole list of other non-combat skills, of course, such as persuasion (which could be broken down into a separate intimidate and diplomacy skill), mercantilism (lower prices or the ability to have your own shop that sees higher returns or the chance for unique items), leadership (giving bonuses to companion persuasions as well as combat) and... Animal Nature possibly (stronger Mabari or other pet animals, possibility animals can turn on non-animals during combat, able to get better items from sending Mabari/pet on "search" runs like what we saw in DAO...)

The potential is endless for the use of non-combat skills, to be honest. It should have been expanded on from DA:O, not removed completely.

[Halberd96]

Persuasion and speech related things in Rpgs are really complicated...some people like Deus Ex: HR's way of doing things, some like the Fallout games and etc.

What was good though about DA:O was that you couldn't just go back a save to do a persuasion check, but at the same time it made the speech specialization the 'best thing to put points in' and it wasn't as engaging as the one in DXHR...

all have their pro's and con's I guess.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

A system where they're all mixed together, such as fallout, works best in a game where large amounts of combat could be avoided.

I want to encourage a less combat-heavy design, so I'm going to continue to advocate for combat/non-combat tradeoffs.

[schalafi]

After reading these 3 pages, I still don't quite understand how the dialogue choices affect your outcome. I guess what I really want to know is if you pick the aggressive choice at first, can you change that later in the game, and pick the sarcastic or diplomatic choices, or are you stuck for the whole game with what you first use?

I usually picked diplomatic and occasionally sarcastic, but rarely chose aggressive choices. Would I have had a different outcome regarding npc cooperation, and skipping battles through using mostly the intimidation option?

[darrylzero]

Realmzmaster wrote...
I understand what you are getting at. Hawke was already a seasoned fighter having been a soldier in the King's army. Bethanyand mage Hawke has extensive training from the father. The dwarf noble and commoner had seen combat. The human noble and dalish elf had been trained in combat. The city elf was train in combat by his mother. The mage was different but had gone through combat in the Harrowing. All are skilled already before we get to mold them.

I think that if a mage is nervous about combat a spell could be miscast or go wrong and affect the party. If a fighter is unsure of himself/herself he or she may fumble their weapon or make an error in judgment.

You want to start with a character that basically knows very little about combat and has to learn to get good at it. A mage that has to learn to tame the magic. The character has to rely on other skills to survive and combat becomes a last resort.

Yes and no.  I don't mind my low-level characters having had some experience with a sword.  I just hate the idea that they would feel confident in their abilities to beat other trained soldiers.  The ogre at the beginning, then, is more ok, because what else could they do at that point?  (Thought I still found it a little implausible).  The deserters at the gates of Kirkwall?  No way, I would have hightailed it out of there.  Getting involved in swordfights or fights with monsters is  risky, and I would avoid whenever possible (unless something was really important or I couldn't).  I want to be able to play my characters the same way.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

A system where they're all mixed together, such as fallout, works best in a game where large amounts of combat could be avoided.

I want to encourage a less combat-heavy design, so I'm going to continue to advocate for combat/non-combat tradeoffs.

I see both sides of this.  I certainly want a less combat-heavy design, but I think it is true that leveling up your combat abilities from your persuasion experience is a little silly, and vice-versa.  Bioware will never do a "learn by doing" system, I don't think, and I might be glad about that.  But it would be more realistic.

In any case, the priority for me is having the non-combat skills and making them useful.  If that means having them in seperate trees, I can live with that.  Maybe at the beginning of the game, though, you could have a set number of points to allocate between the two, so you could at least build some early tradeoffs in?

[CARL_DF90]

The return of the persuade skill would actually be a good thing. Hope to see it happen actually, but there's no reason why separate points could not be gained for passive abilities, active ones, and combat ones. Just a suggestion.

[CARL_DF90]

Oh, plus the persuade passive skill could also be used for discounts at stores. Just another thought.