154 réponses à ce sujet

[Original182]

But...but.... won't you consider adding A FEW logical wordy persuade options? Please?

[tmp7704]

Koyasha wrote...

The landsmeet is confusing and has a lot of complaints about it because it looks like each of the nobles is a vote, and you should just need a majority of votes to win, but it doesn't actually work like that.  It decides things in one way, but it looks like something entirely different, because you're never told anything else.

The principle of it isn't very different though. Substitute each of the nobles with "this line appears to be a good point to make" in the conversation equivalent and people are still going to go "wtf" if in the end they lose while being convinced they should win (either because some of their good points are actually bad, or because the NPC weights the choices differently and the negatives outweight the positives, or the end result just doesn't meet the "win" threshold). Plus the unfamiliarity with the system means the player also needs to be taught how the system is supposed to work.

Intimidation is an entirely different beast than persuasion.  When you're persuading someone you're trying to convince them to see your point of view and change their opinion.  If you're intimidating them, well, you're just threatening to hurt or kill them if they don't do what you say, and the response is much more direct.

Intimidation is basically a persuasion where the person you're trying to "persuade" initially doesn't believe you're going to harm them, and you are trying to change their opinion through your words and gestures. When the character who is attempting to intimidate an NPC simply doesn't have what it takes to pull such feat off, the successful result in the game is no less magical and as hard to believe as seeing a person change their mind about another matter, based just on something your character says.

The guy with the gun in your example can be successful because the gun is a highly intimidating/convincing object in itself. But so can be well picked words.

[Mnemnosyne]

Well, on the other hand don't forget that Planescape: Torment came out back when people did not expect voiced dialogue, and therefore had little to no actual speech within it (I can't even recall if there was any speaking during the video segments).  So the cost of dialogue has increased.  And even in a game like Dragon Age where the main character isn't voiced, if you give the main character long spiels of dialogue as options to say, you have to have the NPC's respond in kind.

As much as I'd like the dialogue system I described above, it would probably at least triple the length of every conversation that currently has a persuade option.  So I can see why it's probably not going to happen as long as the cost of adding a whole bunch more lines of dialogue goes down considerably for some reason.

As for the specific instance of Ser Cauthrien, that could have been done a little better since, as you said, the lines were already present, and rearranging the dialogue is all it would take to make it feel more 'right'.  But this is just an instance of something that was done, at least from our point of view, suboptimally, which is always going to happen.

[tmp7704]

Nevermind the dialogue. How about giving the player a box that at any point may or may not contain a kitten, and with button on it that possibly kills that kitten when pressed? I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to implement...

[Original182]

It may work as a good intimidate check on Cauthrien if she loves kittens.

[Estelindis]

tmp7704 wrote...

Nevermind the dialogue. How about giving the player a box that at any point may or may not contain a kitten, and with button on it that possibly kills that kitten when pressed? I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to implement...

And thus did Schrödinger's kittens enter fantasy RPGs.  We all know that anything quantum-related is especially easy to implement.  ;-)

Modifié par Estelindis, 23 décembre 2009 - 03:04 .

[Mnemnosyne]

tmp7704 wrote...

The principle of it isn't very different though. Substitute each of the nobles with "this line appears to be a good point to make" in the conversation equivalent and people are still going to go "wtf" if in the end they lose while being convinced they should win (either because some of their good points are actually bad, or because the NPC weights the choices differently and the negatives outweight the positives, or the end result just doesn't meet the "win" threshold). Plus the unfamiliarity with the system means the player also needs to be taught how the system is supposed to work.

Well, I think such a system would probably be better and more immersive if not explained, so you don't really know which options are convincing in each dialogue and you don't know that you're essentially playing a points game.  If the Landsmeet had, instead of showing nobles agreeing or disagreeing with each side, done a fade-to-black while the voting is done, then have someone announce the results of the vote in general terms "Loghain has the majority." then people still wouldn't have understood the point system that arrived at this conclusion, but they wouldn't need to. 
(Note: I'm not saying that would have necessarily been a better way to play the Landsmeet scene, just that the player wouldn't have needed to be taught the system in order to accept the result more readily in such a situation.)

Intimidation is basically a persuasion where the person you're trying to "persuade" initially doesn't believe you're going to harm them, and you are trying to change their opinion through your words and gestures. When the character who is attempting to intimidate an NPC simply doesn't have what it takes to pull such feat off, the successful result in the game is no less magical and as hard to believe as seeing a person change their mind about another matter, based just on something your character says.

The guy with the gun in your example can be successful because the gun is a highly intimidating/convincing object in itself. But so can be well picked words.

Sure, but in most RPG's, especially in a fantasy setting like this, you are heavily armed and armored.  I would think that in Ferelden, the mere presence of a group consisting of almost any possible combination of your party members is highly intimidating simply because they walked in the room.  Doubly so in the case of specific party members, and/or obvious mages.

Indeed, I don't find it surprising that people give in to my demands instantly when I intimidate them.  I find it more surprising that they are willing to put up such protestation in the face of a group like mine strongly asking that they do something.

Various party members should give bonuses to intimidate just for having them in the party, too.  "Psst.  Shale, look scary."  

[Tirigon]

Take the easy way: Kill Cauthrien right when you free Anora and dont bother talking to her. No problems with explanation or persuasion then, and besides its fun.

[tmp7704]

Koyasha wrote...

Various party members should give bonuses to intimidate just for having them in the party, too.  "Psst.  Shale, look scary."  

I really liked that one where you could use Sten as intimidation token; this definitely made sense as far as threatening goes

Other times... sure, the armour and weapons might play a factor against the most basic peasant types, but half the folks you get to talk to is also armoured and armed, and often come with advantage in numbers on top of that. So these were really stretching suspension of disbelief. I was actually glad i kept my coercion low, having my attempts fail most of the time just made more sense overall.

[suliabryon]

David, I just want to say that personally, I found the balance of dialogue and persuade/cunning/intimidate options to be pretty much perfect. I actually often find myself marveling at the perceptive depth of the game in general, especially when an NPC pops up with a totally unexpected comment on a given situation. I'm always wondering "I wonder what I'm missing by not have so-and-so in my party?"



I constantly think "Wow, the work that went into this game is just amazing."



But then, one of my best friends works in game design, so perhaps his comments over the years allow me to see a little further behind the curtain than the average player.

[AiTenshi1]

For my input, albeit a bit late in the discussion, it seems...



Intimidate and Persuade relate to different abilities, and are supposed to reflect your character's approach to resolving issues (direct, sheer force methods versus indirect, subtle methods).



With respect to the context and general perception of your party, the PC and party members are all very definitely perceived as threatening or potentially so in every context due to the fact that you are the last Grey Wardens in Ferelden, survived a slaughter at Ostagar, and have survived repeated attempts on various lives at different points (the PC's, Leliana's, Ohgren's when fighting Branka, etc). Regardless of anyone else being armed and armored, the PC and your party are a step above anyone else in the land and are well recognized as such even by your enemies. After all, that is precisely why you are in the position of "heroine" (or "hero") rather than someone else such as Arl Earmon or one of your NPC party members such as Alistair. The only people who refuse to consider the extremely intimidating nature of the PC and associated party members are (a) the darkspawn (who just don't care and are not developed enough as far as their motivations, in my view) and ( certain fanatical faction members (i.e. Dwarven supporters of your opposite choice for king, Village of Haven "protectors" of the Urn of Sacred Ashes, etc, all of whom are certainly not prone to consider whether or not attacking you is likely to result in their success rather than their death).

[Sihvar]

On the original topic:



I never figured out what Ser Cauthrien means when she says "and Alistair, if you were even remotely worthy of being called Maric's son, you would already be in the Landsmeet". Is she just criticizing his punctuality? After all, we still arrived well before Anora.

[Asylumer]

Sergeant Kylon: "And people willingly attack you? Are they just stupid?"



Paraphrased, but oh so true.

[Estelindis]

Sihvar wrote...

On the original topic:

I never figured out what Ser Cauthrien means when she says "and Alistair, if you were even remotely worthy of being called Maric's son, you would already be in the Landsmeet". Is she just criticizing his punctuality? After all, we still arrived well before Anora.

Yeah...  Even if you go straight to the Landsmeet, without stopping for even an instant, you get to be late.  And she gets to snark at you.  But it's more dramatic that way, I guess.  Characters move at the speed of plot.  ;-)

Modifié par Estelindis, 23 décembre 2009 - 04:16 .

[Original182]

Sihvar wrote...
I never figured out what Ser Cauthrien means when she says "and Alistair, if you were even remotely worthy of being called Maric's son, you would already be in the Landsmeet". Is she just criticizing his punctuality? After all, we still arrived well before Anora.

I thought she was attacking Alistair's legitimacy as a worthy successor.

[Estelindis]

Original182 wrote...
I thought she was attacking Alistair's legitimacy as a worthy successor.

I thought she was attacking Alistair's legitimacy as a worthy successor on the basis of his lack of punctuality... 

[Original182]

Estelindis wrote...

Original182 wrote...
I thought she was attacking Alistair's legitimacy as a worthy successor.

I thought she was attacking Alistair's legitimacy as a worthy successor on the basis of his lack of punctuality... 

Well it could be that she thinks Alistair is not a worthy heir compared to Loghain, so she decides to attack Alistair at every oppotunity, like a trivial case of punctuality.

[0mar]

Ser Cautherin was basically an apologist. I didn't particularly care for her character at all. Reminded me of Hans-Ulrich Rudel. He was an amazing Luftwaffe pilot. He was awarded **** Germany's highest medal in 1944, of which only 12 medals were to be given to those heroes of the Reich that influenced the war in a most significant way. However, he was an unrepentant **** to the end. He published a memoir in which he defends nearly every program instituted by the ****s.



That's what Ser Cautherin is to me. No matter what you say to her, she defends Loghain to the bitter end. Unless, of course, you use a Jedi mind trick.

[SeanMurphy2]

I think Cauthrien means Alistair should have been a noble sitting in the chamber with some experience of government. Earlier she calls you a churl. She may be a bit snobbish and not think that highly of peasants. This is surprising given her and Loghain's poor background. Though I suppose they both achieved something and worked their way out of poverty.

Re that other issue
I never noticed any problems with the game's persuade system. Or thought it should be changed. The Cauthrien landsmeet dialogue is the only time I noticed that issue.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 23 décembre 2009 - 06:19 .

[Mnemnosyne]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

Re that other issue
I never noticed any problems with the game's persuade system. Or thought it should be changed. The Cauthrien landsmeet dialogue is the only time I noticed that issue.

This is true.  While it brought up the point and prompted a lot of discussion on how persuade could be improved, throughout the vast majority of the game I had no issues with how it was handled.  You were usually given persuade options at what felt like the right time in most conversations, and they worked smoothly.  The Cauthrien dialogue actually sticks out partly because of this, due to the fact that if you choose any of the other arguments, you lose the option to persuade her and the conversation invariably ends in a fight.

[SeanMurphy2]

Re: the Cauthrien Landsmeet dialogue

She may have been intended as a character who agrees what Loghain has done is wrong. But can't abandon her duty to Loghain. She thinks it is more honourable to die there fighting rather than betray him.

She may have been written as a tragic character who was meant to die there. Because of her notions of loyalty, duty and honour. And there would be poignancy in clicking through the various dialogue options until the inevitable fight.

Then maybe they added the persuade check later on.

Also it may explain why she is easier to beat than at Howe's estate. She could be more half-hearted about it. And be happy to die there. But would otherwise be the best fighter in Ferelden.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 23 décembre 2009 - 07:56 .

[Sihvar]

The main problem with persuade/intimidate is that there's so little reason not to max out coercion. You can assume everyone will have it by level 12 or so, and then why even include the checks?

(For example, presumably there's some dialogue when you fail the persuasion check on Ser Cauthrien. But has anyone ever seen it?)

Modifié par Sihvar, 23 décembre 2009 - 08:13 .

[SeanMurphy2]

I think the coercion skill works in combination with your strength and cunning attribute.



I think I failed the cunning persuade with Cauthrien on my first playthrough.

[Sihvar]

It does, but coercion 4 is sufficient to pass any persuade/intimidate check regardless of your strength or cunning.  At least that was my understanding.

Modifié par Sihvar, 23 décembre 2009 - 08:04 .

[LetoII]

Sihvar wrote...

It does, but coercion 4 is sufficient to pass any persuade/intimidate check regardless of your strength or cunning.  At least that was my understanding.

No, I failed to persuade Ser Cauthrien, and I had coercion 4.