184 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

I will be sad if in DA3 I can't talk my way out of combat.

Coercion FTW!

Lithuasil wrote...

Coercion should never, ever, ever be a skill. Especially not with a "chance".
Coercion in videogames should be what Deus Ex HR promised (not that they kept it) - Observe your target and pick the dialogue choice that's most likely to appease them.

Having no knoweldge of what Deus Ex promised, my one percieved issue with this is paraphrasing. The only instance I can remember in DA2 where, if you picked the right dialog option, you got to skip combat, was at the end of Merrill's quest line. The dialog choice to not go into combat was "I'll take responsibility." Which, in the context of the conversation, made me think that Hawke would take responsibility for what happened to the Keeper. Which I figured would make the Dalish hate me. So I didn't take that option. In actuality, picking that option made Hawke actually say something along the lines of "I'll make sure Merrill doesn't do any more evil deeds in the future."

As long as paraphrasing risks making me not know exactly what the intent of the line is, I don't want to have my ability to talk my way out of combat based off me interpretting the paraphrase correctly. And since I haven't really gotten any indication they intend to get rid of paraphrasing.....yea....

[Uccio]

Seconded for skills.

Modifié par Ukki, 24 septembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[Lithuasil]

BubbleDncr wrote...

As long as paraphrasing risks making me not know exactly what the intent of the line is, I don't want to have my ability to talk my way out of combat based off me interpretting the paraphrase correctly. And since I haven't really gotten any indication they intend to get rid of paraphrasing.....yea....

I agree that's an issue, but one that could be overcome. Also, I remember a few more instances where you could avoid combats by letting companions jump in at the right time, and a few occasions where certain conversation path' led to changing sides in a conflict (Most importantly Sir Varnell)

[Sir JK]

In my humble opinion, coercion/persuasion/diplomacy/intimidation as binary skills is a horribly bad mechanic. Not only does it degrade the subtle and complex art of interaction to a binary check. Both in pnp (but more easily forgiven there due to a need for simple and quick math) and in cRPGs. It encourages summarization of actions "I persuade him" rather than actual interaction. Often completely forgoes the need to understand or even listen to the other side at all.
What's even worse, it also encourages the line of thinking that many things can be solved by just saying the right thing and the right time. Which is a very simplistic way of treating it.

I'm not opposed to having a character-build element in persuasion (ie. investment of skillpoints/abilities), quite the contrary, but what primary focus should be on should be to develop the system into a much more interactive thing. I'd love to see persuasion working more along the lines of a combination lock. Requiring you to have been saying the right things all conversation (and those things not being: persuasion attempt, persuasion attempt, persuasion attempt). Building up trust, displaying enthusiasm, mitigdating fallback, refering to authority, making moral and philosophical metaphors and similar.
You know... actual rethorics?

Failing that I'd much rather have DA2's system. At least it requires active effort (as opposed to passive effort that most systems use) to be convincing.

And for those of you opposed to the conversation icons (and particularly the flirt icon), if you think that is bad, what would the persuasion icon be? It's straight out tells you that with sufficient character investment this dialogue choice will always benefit you. And unlike flirt icons it's generally aimed at complete strangers.

[Tootles FTW]

Personally I dislike skills that otherwise withhold dialogue options. I don't mind linking your success probability with certain stats (Cunning, for example) but having to waste a skill point to unlock conversation options is a big pet peeve with me.

I think DA2 had some cool scenes where your personality choice affected how certain NPCs reacted to your dialogue. For example, Gascard DuPuis only joins you against crazy-mage-dude if you have a Diplomatic (implore the good in him) or Aggressive ("I'm going to f*ing kill you") personality,

[Todd23]

Gaider did say he could be persuaded.  But how am I expected to persuade without any coercion skill?

[Lithuasil]

Sir JK wrote...
Both in pnp (but more easily forgiven there due to a need for simple and quick math)  

How is it more easily forgiven there? It's infinitely easier to play out the interactions when you're not forced to stick to a premade dialogue tree (Especially bluffing and such).

[Vandicus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
Both in pnp (but more easily forgiven there due to a need for simple and quick math)  

How is it more easily forgiven there? It's infinitely easier to play out the interactions when you're not forced to stick to a premade dialogue tree (Especially bluffing and such).

Because the players aren't necessarily good at originating lines of argumentation. People who aren't good at rhetorical debate or who are not very good at social interaction should not be barred from playing charismatic or highly persuasive characters(in theory). PnP doesn't bar frail and skinny bookworms from playing hulking brutes with the IQ of a rock. Players should be allowed to play a character who is suave and sophisticated, even if they can't do that in real life(the whole point of playing a PnP rpg is usually to do things you can't in real life). This has serious implementation problems but has a very valid reason for existing.


Now in CRPGs since we don't compose our own arguments, it doesn't make any sense. Any arguments we could have are provided to us by the game.

Modifié par Vandicus, 24 septembre 2012 - 08:39 .

[Sir JK]

Lithuasil wrote...

How is it more easily forgiven there? It's infinitely easier to play out the interactions when you're not forced to stick to a premade dialogue tree (Especially bluffing and such).

Because it's the character's rethorics and not the player's that is the important bit and juggling dozens of variables and running them through several charts and tables is a bit impractical.

But in principle I agree. I've just never gotten it to work very well.

[Salaya]

Sir JK wrote...
...

Failing that I'd much rather have DA2's system. At least it requires active effort (as opposed to passive effort that most systems use) to be convincing.

....

I completely disagree wit this; Origins puts the player into the difficult choice of a tree skill. You need to plan what skills or tress want to develop, since dveloping certain ones means others won't be reachable due to your plan. There is an active effort directly aimed by the crpg gameplay (strategies to build your character and the effects of that decision)

On the other hand, DA2 was an absolute disaster. You do not need to put any effort to build "persuasion". In the moment Hawke has a defined personality, you automatically have the correspondent persuasion lines.

That said, I completely agree with the idea of refining persuasion to make it more interactive. Persuasion skill should be something similar to deus ex HR; or even better, that the persuasion skills opens a lot of possible lines that would led you to a strategic retoric attempt, with subsequent levels of persuasion leading to easier paths to pick coercion lines.

Anyway, I'd rather see skills again than the weird, poor (to my tastes, of course) "system" from DA2.

[LPPrince]

In Kingdoms of Amalur, even with maxed persuasion skills, you still had a maximum 95% chance to pass a persuasion check.

There was always a chance of failure. I liked that, even though it irked me hardcore when I failed a check I totally felt I should've passed.

[Wulfram]

Salaya wrote...

I completely disagree wit this; Origins puts the player into the difficult choice of a tree skill. You need to plan what skills or tress want to develop, since dveloping certain ones means others won't be reachable due to your plan. There is an active effort directly aimed by the crpg gameplay (strategies to build your character and the effects of that decision)

PC buys Coercion and Combat training, with survival an option if you really want.  NPCs you use buy Combat training and Survival.  Camp fodder buy crafting if you want crafting.

That's not a difficult choice.

[Sir JK]

Salaya wrote...
I completely disagree wit this; Origins puts the player into the difficult choice of a tree skill. You need to plan what skills or tress want to develop, since dveloping certain ones means others won't be reachable due to your plan. There is an active effort directly aimed by the crpg gameplay (strategies to build your character and the effects of that decision)

This is what I meant with passive effort. You build up your base outside of any conversation and no matter who you talk to or how you interact with them and others you always have the same chance. While you certainly add thought to the situation and plan ahead, hence the word effort, you don't actually have to do any work inside the conversation itself short of deciding if the persuasion attempt is appropriate in character.

As opposed to DA2 which required you to actively set your dominant personality accordingly to even be allowed certain attempts.

Mind that I am by no means saying it worked well. It did not. But it is my preference of the two (especially if it's improved or tweaked).

[Salaya]

Wulfram wrote...

...

PC buys Coercion and Combat training, with survival an option if you really want.  NPCs you use buy Combat training and Survival.  Camp fodder buy crafting if you want crafting.

That's not a difficult choice.

It is not if you don't want to roleplay your character, no. But if you want to build a character not gameplay induced, well.

At any rate, it's easier than picking lines to obtain a certain personality.

[Lithuasil]

Vandicus wrote...
Because the players aren't necessarily good at originating lines of argumentation. People who aren't good at rhetorical debate or who are not very good at social interaction should not be barred from playing charismatic or highly persuasive characters(in theory). PnP doesn't bar frail and skinny bookworms from playing hulking brutes with the IQ of a rock. Players should be allowed to play a character who is suave and sophisticated, even if they can't do that in real life(the whole point of playing a PnP rpg is usually to do things you can't in real life). This has serious implementation problems but has a very valid reason for existing.

Bolded out the important part - 
No matter what I do, or how much I train, I'm never going to be a 6' 8" Vikingwarrior. (Nor am I ever going to be say a Drow). Those are things I cannot do/be in real life.
Talking is none of those things. In fact it's a thing most people playing PnP areperfectly capable of doing (and unlike a real situation where you have to make up a bluff or an argument on the fly, around a table you're fully capable of taking your time to think of something (or ask for information that you forgot but your character would have).
If you're walking up to an npc, say "I coerce him" and roll a dice, instead of playing it out, you're lazy and a bad roleplayer, simple as that.

[Vandicus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
Because the players aren't necessarily good at originating lines of argumentation. People who aren't good at rhetorical debate or who are not very good at social interaction should not be barred from playing charismatic or highly persuasive characters(in theory). PnP doesn't bar frail and skinny bookworms from playing hulking brutes with the IQ of a rock. Players should be allowed to play a character who is suave and sophisticated, even if they can't do that in real life(the whole point of playing a PnP rpg is usually to do things you can't in real life). This has serious implementation problems but has a very valid reason for existing.

If you're walking up to an npc, say "I coerce him" and roll a dice, instead of playing it out, you're lazy and a bad roleplayer, simple as that.

That's a rather extreme way to portray the average person wanting to play a suave or charismatic character. Most people are not suave or charismatic. As such, its often difficult for people who want to rp suave or charismatic characters to rp it convincingly. The rp is still done, but their success is based on their dice roll rather than their stammering. The implementation does leave a lot to be desired, such as the scenario you pointed out illustrates(as does the dreaded diplomancer), but its existence is justified in order to provide people with a fuller variety of options in PnP.


Now for a CRPG, we are always limited to the same set of persuasive/coercive dialogue. Artificially restricting this serves no purpose but burning skill points. It doesn't exist to help out people who want to rp a suave or charismatic character, it just penalizes their combat effectiveness for wanting to play one.

[ADeadDiehard]

They should have coercion as part of a general skill tree available to all classes. I didn't like how in II you could only convince some people if you were a certain personality type. Though coercion was done kinda well with Anders at one point (needing a certain amount of friendship/rivalry to stop him from killing Ella).

[Morroian]

Wulfram wrote...

Coercion type skills encourage poor writing IMO. You pick the "I win" persuade choice, and then the other guy does what you want. It usually feels more like a jedi mind trick than anything real.

This, I'd rather Deus Ex HR style dialogue battles for coercion.

[iSignIn]

Wulfram wrote...

Coercion type skills encourage poor writing IMO. You pick the "I win" persuade choice, and then the other guy does what you want. It usually feels more like a jedi mind trick than anything real.

Indeed.

I'd rather have Interrupts.

[AlanC9]

Wulfram wrote...

Coercion type skills encourage poor writing IMO. You pick the "I win" persuade choice, and then the other guy does what you want. It usually feels more like a jedi mind trick than anything real.

I think this gets the causality wrong. In games without Coercion type skills you get the same mind tricks. They just get trriggered in other manners -- ME2's P/R score checks for instance.

[Menagra]

Vandicus wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Coercion type skills encourage poor writing IMO. You pick the "I win" persuade choice, and then the other guy does what you want. It usually feels more like a jedi mind trick than anything real.

^This

I have mixed feelings about such systems in tabletop rpgs(substitute for real player interaction), in a video game it feels even weaker. People don't make skill checks to determine whether or not they're persuaded, its a simple question of whether or not the argument makes sense to them. If the skill system is reimplmented I feel it should not include the diplomacy/coercion type options.

I agree -- I prefer the personality system to the coersion/persuade/intimidate system. Also prefered the friend/rival system.

(Cullen rival +20)

[Plaintiff]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

It would need to be better designed than the coercion skill in DAO for me to desire it coming back. I really liked how in DA2 we couldn't talk ourselves out of any situation that was out-talkable - we only had one of three persuasion options open to our characters at any time. Not only that, the dialogue options were based on previous talks instead of being based on mostly combat XP (bashing darkspawn heads to learn how to talk better feels odd to me).

I'm not opposed to the idea per se, but I'd rather not return to the four ranks in Coercion auto-win button we had in DAO which allowed us to talk ourselves out of every single possible dialogue in the game. If you weren't picking those skills up, you were essentially playing the game system wrong (which is a fine RP choice in itself, but skills should still be balanced against each other game-wise as well).

I agree with all of this. I think it makes more sense to have special dialogue options be reliant on previous in-game actions.

[Kidd]

Wulfram wrote...

PC buys Coercion and Combat training, with survival an option if you really want.  NPCs you use buy Combat training and Survival.  Camp fodder buy crafting if you want crafting.

That's not a difficult choice.

This could be solved by tying out-of-combat skills to certain characters. Perhaps Cullen brews potions while Cassandra is great at devising traps. The PC would have choices in crafting as well, but none of them related to potions or traps since there's companions to take care of that. Ultimately this would make crafting handle much like enchantment.

Alternatively, no companion crafting at all. This leads to a situation where your choices in PC out-of-combat build will ultimately matter a lot more.

Lithuasil wrote...

Bolded out the important part - 
No matter what I do, or how much I train, I'm never going to be a 6' 8" Vikingwarrior. (Nor am I ever going to be say a Drow). Those are things I cannot do/be in real life.
Talking is none of those things.

If your character has 30+ charisma (yes, extreme, but it's to show a point), do you think you could really come up with what they would say just by giving it a few moments of thoughts? I sure know I can't. Likewise I happily accept Int rolls from my party's 20 Int wizard when they get stuck in a puzzle, because obviously this guy is roleplaying somebody with super-human intelligence and wouldn't be stopped by the party's inability to solve the Tower of Hanoi.

Rolling to keep character consistency is good.

AlanC9 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Coercion type skills encourage poor writing IMO. You pick the "I win" persuade choice, and then the other guy does what you want. It usually feels more like a jedi mind trick than anything real.

I think this gets the causality wrong. In games without Coercion type skills you get the same mind tricks. They just get trriggered in other manners -- ME2's P/R score checks for instance.

To be fair, Paragon options are Charm while Renegade are Intimidate. They were outright labelled as such in ME1 anyway =)

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 25 septembre 2012 - 06:54 .

[NRieh]

Yes, please. Non-combat "social" skills and\\or stat check roll. Cunning, I suppose, since we have no cahrisma, and strenght - for intimidate. Same as you had a stat check against lockpick in DA2 - if you consider original diplomacy-charm system too complex.

But let MY stats and skills decide - whether I can trick a templar, NOT having or not having Varric in a party. Yes, I like Varric, and he was kinda Hawke's "outsource" Coercion during the game (same as we can consider Aveline "outsource" intimidate. But I'd prefer to do things on my own.

Let charming and clever rogue discuss things, let ****** berserk warrior deal with it showing his muscles and chewing his shield. THAT was an essential part of RP, you know. To have options in resolving problems. Steal the key, persuade to give a key, intimidate, kill everyone and take it from dead body.

MotA took a slight step in that direction (compared to original DA2) offering "stealth" vs "breaking in" strategy. I'd love to have more variety in playstyles.