184 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

Nrieh wrote...
snip

One last try - I am aware that programming something requires numbers to code. I thought neither of us were stupid enough as to warrant mentioning this specifically.

With that being said - do you, or do you not realize the difference between "simulating objects in physical space and seeing if they clash" and "rolling a dice, and the number that comes up determines if it's a hit or not"?

[Vandicus]

Salaya wrote...



Note that english is not my language, so I probably misunderstood some parts of your nice post.

That said, I've never advocated that skill system should come back "as it was" from Origins. What I'm saying is that it needs to to come back in some sort of system as relevant as the growing talents/spells system. How the dice rolls and numbers should work to reflect that system is perfectlly improvable.

There is a lot of room to improve the skill. For example, as I said earlier, adding a "persuade" dialog branch to coercitive PCs that gives lots of arguments and possible ways to obtain the desired objective, not just by one line. By upgrading the skill, those arguments could get improvements in the rolls or simply reduce the number of "completely" broken arguments so the player could make decisions easier. This way, interaction and skill point allocation keeps coherent.

There is no reason that I can see why attempting to persuade or coerce a person should be limited by some sort've allocation.

If persuading people, or having diplomacy talents, is considered a skill, its perfectly reasonable to assume that anyone could get more or less experienced or talented with it. An allocation reflects this fact pretty clearly.

Success and failure independent of line of argumentation is arbitrary and adds nothing.

I'm not sure if I undertsand you. There are lines of dialog more useful than others; even in Origins, some arguments tagged as [pesuade] were more effective than others. If you are trying to persuade someone, is perfectly reasonable that various lines of argumentation come to your mind; if you have the right skill, some of them, even being inferior to others may end to result in success. But likely, it wont be the case; but, in any of these instances, the line of dialog/argument is not independent from its probability to succeed.

A.There are a limited number of dialogue options in the game. I don't see how arbitrarily limiting access to dialogue options is a feature/positive. The paragon/renegade options is an example of non-arbitrary limitation of dialogue. Previous decisions result in a reputation that lends to the impressiveness of some statements and the thought process of Shepard. Any sort've system where one simply puts in points to "unlock" conversation options does not have any benefit to the experience from a gamist or a roleplaying perspective.

B. Dice rolls when it comes to negotiations is just plain bad. Save scumming, nat20s, nat1s, etc. If the writer only allows the player to use arguments that make sense and are convincing, the we only suffer the nat 1 effect(where good arguments fail because of a meaningless die roll). If the writer adds in stupid arguments, we suffer from the nat20 effect(where horrible arguments suceed because of a meaningless die roll).

C. The problem with things tagged [persuade] in unlock style systems is both point A, and that they encourage lazy writing. Since the player makes an investment of points, the return on those points needs to be sufficient to prevent the character from being "gimped". As such, a number of auto-win buttons are placed throughout the game for people with sufficient point allocations. Since the writer recognizes these as auto-win rewards, they rarely bother to disguise their auto-win nature. (Force persuade is barely distinguishable from regular persuade options in most games, and Force persuade is literal mind control)

[Mr Fixit]

Lithuasil wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Which would turn it into a twitch game essentially, with player skill being the only thing that matters. No thanks.

So either you're suggesting that "tactical" rpgs do not require any skill, or that sheer dumb luck is a better way to determine success then player skill. 

Yup. That's right. Me being opposed to the notion that player skill should be the only thing that matters in an RPG means that I advance the position that RPGs shouldn't require any skill.

You got it.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:59 .

[Conduit0]

Honestly I preferred DA2's coercion system to DAO. Maxing out coercion in DAO literally was an "I Win" button, and even without max coercion if you were a sufficiently strong warrior or amazingly cunning rogue you still got the, "I Win" button since every coercion chance had both persuade and intimidate choices. Though ironically if you were a mage, you just got screwed.

In DA2 the coercion system didn't rely on stats, rather it was based on the overall personality you gave to your Hawke. Friendly/diplomatic Hawke was good at persuasion, sarcastic/witty Hawke was good at lying, and aggressive/angry Hawke was good at intimidating. The best part was that not every option was available in every situation, meaning no matter how high your stats, there were still plenty of situations that you couldn't talk your way out of, preventing the, "I Win" button syndrome from the first game.

Also DA2's system gave you more variation in what you could do beyond the over done, "Hurr durr, I meathead warrior, me flex muscles and scare puny girly men" or, "I'm a silver tongued rogue, so I can bulls*** my way out of any situation." Personally in DA2 I enjoyed being able to play a warrior with the conversational skill of a true diplomat, or playing a mage that could make people ****** their pants by just looking at them.

But of course I realize liking anything about DA2 more than DAO makes me a heretic and automatically invalidates my opinions in the eyes of the majority of the BSN.

[Vandicus]

Conduit0 wrote...

Honestly I preferred DA2's coercion system to DAO. Maxing out coercion in DAO literally was an "I Win" button, and even without max coercion if you were a sufficiently strong warrior or amazingly cunning rogue you still got the, "I Win" button since every coercion chance had both persuade and intimidate choices. Though ironically if you were a mage, you just got screwed.

In DA2 the coercion system didn't rely on stats, rather it was based on the overall personality you gave to your Hawke. Friendly/diplomatic Hawke was good at persuasion, sarcastic/witty Hawke was good at lying, and aggressive/angry Hawke was good at intimidating. The best part was that not every option was available in every situation, meaning no matter how high your stats, there were still plenty of situations that you couldn't talk your way out of, preventing the, "I Win" button syndrome from the first game.

Also DA2's system gave you more variation in what you could do beyond the over done, "Hurr durr, I meathead warrior, me flex muscles and scare puny girly men" or, "I'm a silver tongued rogue, so I can bulls*** my way out of any situation." Personally in DA2 I enjoyed being able to play a warrior with the conversational skill of a true diplomat, or playing a mage that could make people ****** their pants by just looking at them.

But of course I realize liking anything about DA2 more than DAO makes me a heretic and automatically invalidates my opinions in the eyes of the majority of the BSN.

So much this^

That's a good example of how to do a meaningful diplomacy system.

[Lithuasil]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Yup. That's right. Me being opposed to the notion that player skill should be the only thing that matters in an RPG means that I advance the position that RPGs shouldn't require any skill.

You got it.

That's not what I said - but do tell, aside from the players ability to commandeer allies, plan an encounter, and fight in that encounter - what other factors should play a role - and how would adding a random chance factor to it change anything for the better?

[Fallstar]

They could do with tweaking it, but yes dialogue skills - and non combat skills in general - add more depth to character creation, something DA2 sorely lacked.

[Mr Fixit]

Lithuasil wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Yup. That's right. Me being opposed to the notion that player skill should be the only thing that matters in an RPG means that I advance the position that RPGs shouldn't require any skill.

You got it.

That's not what I said - but do tell, aside from the players ability to commandeer allies, plan an encounter, and fight in that encounter - what other factors should play a role - and how would adding a random chance factor to it change anything for the better?

Skills and abilities of a PC in an RPG shouldn't be equated with player's skills and abilities, and that's exactly what your proposal calls for. To resolve a combat encounter your way, my reflexes as a player would be paramount to determining success, and that, to me, is unacceptable for something that calls itself RPG.

I can go along with a mixed system liked the one used in Witcher where there is some player skill required in a combat encounter (clicking in a timely manner to link attacks, though the presence of the pause button makes it very easy), but where all the actual effects still depend on Geralt's skills.

Anyway, you still haven't demonstrated a way to 'lose' math. OK, your sword connects and you hit. Now what? How do you model damage? Is it an instakill? If not, there has to be a system in place to track who dies, as well as when and why.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:43 .

[Salaya]

Vandicus wrote...

....

A.There are a limited number of dialogue options in the game. I don't see how arbitrarily limiting access to dialogue options is a feature/positive. The paragon/renegade options is an example of non-arbitrary limitation of dialogue. Previous decisions result in a reputation that lends to the impressiveness of some statements and the thought process of Shepard. Any sort've system where one simply puts in points to "unlock" conversation options does not have any benefit to the experience from a gamist or a roleplaying perspective.

That the limitation comes with a reason you don't like, it doesn't mean its arbitrary. Giving the option to pump coercion skills between others, gives a wide range to roleplay your character. Giving only two ways to grow your persuasion is limiting in a way much more aggravating.

If you decide that your mage spent lots of nights speaking of philosophy with her comrades in the tower; accepting that your city elf did a lot of negotiation with noble humans; or whatever other reason the player wants to take for it; all of them result in the allocation, that is not arbitrary, but more wide open than a binary system (much better developed in ME than in DA2, wich required 0 effort).

At the end, allocation is reflecting a reason, not necesarily arbitrary.

Vandicus wrote...
B. Dice rolls when it comes to negotiations is just plain bad. Save scumming, nat20s, nat1s, etc. If the writer only allows the player to use arguments that make sense and are convincing, the we only suffer the nat 1 effect(where good arguments fail because of a meaningless die roll). If the writer adds in stupid arguments, we suffer from the nat20 effect(where horrible arguments suceed because of a meaningless die roll).

That extremely good arguments could fail or succeed due to a good or bad coercion skill, in a context in which those instances are goberned by probabilties, it doesn't mean that the very fact of dicing a roll to attempt a good coercion objective is bad; it means that even the best coercitive player has a chance of failure (and the inverse). Wich is perfectly reasonable.

Vandicus wrote...
C. The problem with things tagged [persuade] in unlock style systems is both point A, and that they encourage lazy writing. Since the player makes an investment of points, the return on those points needs to be sufficient to prevent the character from being "gimped". As such, a number of auto-win buttons are placed throughout the game for people with sufficient point allocations. Since the writer recognizes these as auto-win rewards, they rarely bother to disguise their auto-win nature. (Force persuade is barely distinguishable from regular persuade options in most games, and Force persuade is literal mind control)

Assuming that in fact, [persuade] taggings encourage lazy writing (I disagree),  why is the writer bound to put those "auto-win" rewards? As I've already said, the system is not fixed; there is a lot of room for improvement. If you add interaction and more arguments, the failure (or the succees) comes mostly from the player (which is not a bad thing, as I refuted at your point .

But the problem is, unlocking [persuade] tags does not encourage bad writing. It's perfectly possible to write several and good arguments to reflect the coercitive skill. Even in a case in wich auto-wins are present, that does not imply bad writing.

Modifié par Salaya, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[NRieh]

With that being said - do you, or do you not realize the difference between "simulating objects in physical space and seeing if they clash" and "rolling a dice, and the number that comes up determines if it's a hit or not"?

So..you don't like "simple" common stat&checks system - and you ask for more advanced one, with more stats and more checks?

"Simulating objects in physical space" would take same checks, but require more of them. And they still will include player stats and skills - those are not going anywhere.
Be it 2d6+str or some crazy formula which respects blade type and shape, weight, possible hit angles, surrounding temperatures, humidity and lighting - you can NOT model it without adding player stats (and also enemy defence - type, material, features) variables into calculations. Unless - "always hits and damages".

I can't get it. You don't like d20 rolls, but you just offer to add some more...

And if you care so much for "realism" - my husband rides bike for something like 30 years, and month ago he fell and broke his arm. So..no - random things are not that unreal as you may think they are.

But let it be, even if you do "simulate" swordfight in some supersimulating realistic manner.... HOW can you "simulate" social skills in a single-player prescripted game (without using stats and skills)?

If proving things were that easy - lawyers would never have a job. Knowing facts and being able to use them - is a different thing. Pretty face does not make you charming.

Obvious DA2 example - you can not trick templars and tell them to leave, Varric - can. You both know same things. Varric has skill, you...have only Varric. Game does not check how smart Hawke is - it just checks did you take this allmighty storryteller in party. Game does not allow you to be persuasive yourself.

So while this can still be implemented, it seems somewhat irrelevant, if all the other dialog options are also viable solutions.

You know, talking Saren to suicide was also pretty much optional. It does not change game outcome. Same as conversation with inspecting admiral (Mihalkovich afair) could turn pretty much different if you use and if you don't use skill lines. Or - DAO, freeing Sten. 3 options to have same outcome. Pick, talk, intimidate. So - yes diplomacy and charm was always just an option. But you could have this option if you needed it.

[Mr_Steph]

Oh yes yes yes. Coercion and the rest of the DAO skills please!!!

[Kidd]

Salaya wrote...

but more wide open than a binary system (much better developed in ME than in DA2, wich required 0 effort).

Do not agree here. While ME1 and ME2 sure required more effort indeed, that also railroaded you. To play a persuasive character of either kind, you'd really need to glue yourself to the upper right and bottom right corners respectively. This leads to pretty two dimensional characters, and at least I have never enjoyed playing those much.

The ME3 system is odd in that it ties to (essentially) quests completed instead of character actions. As long as your percentage of completion is high, you can talk yourself out of any situation in any way you like. The limitation isn't there, but I suppose at least you can always pick the choice that fits your character.

I like the DA2 system a lot because it's somewhere in between the two. Since it depends on your dominant tone and nothing else, you simply need to pick more of that one tone than the other two tones. You can have a spread of 34%/33%/33% - essentially being able to pick your options very freely yet retaining your dominant tone. If you did 34% Paragon / 33% Neutral / 33% Renegade in ME2, you'd never pass a paragon check - or renegade for that matter.

DA2 has three types of persuasion btw, DAO has two.

[DKJaigen]

I rahter prefer the personality system in DA 2. kind hawk could be diplomatic , snarky hawk could lie while **** hawk could intimidate.

This ensures that their are no i win buttons

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Neverwinter Nights 2, Trial of Ember.

/thread

[Aulis Vaara]

DKJaigen wrote...

I rahter prefer the personality system in DA 2. kind hawk could be diplomatic , snarky hawk could lie while **** hawk could intimidate.

This ensures that their are no i win buttons

Wait, what? What you describe is exactly an "I win"-button. No matter your Hawke, you can always talk yourself out of anything. Your character can never lose in conversation. And that is exactly what so many people are against.

[Overlord_Mephist]

I'm not a fan of the coercion skill as it cheapens(as in it takes the value away from, not that its cheesing) npc conversations/personalities. Its fine in the average D&D game because the npcs have like no personality and exist merely to give you gold/magic items however in dragon age it just kills the mood.

I personally thought DA2 handled diplomacy better as you had to talk people down a couple of dialogue branches rather than hit an IWIN(persuasion) button.

[Kidd]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

I rahter prefer the personality system in DA 2. kind hawk could be diplomatic , snarky hawk could lie while **** hawk could intimidate.

This ensures that their are no i win buttons

Wait, what? What you describe is exactly an "I win"-button. No matter your Hawke, you can always talk yourself out of anything. Your character can never lose in conversation. And that is exactly what so many people are against.

No, your character can usually only talk themselves out of 1/3 of out-talkable situations. That leads to replayability.

[Forst1999]

I don't care for coercion skills. I always max them out as soon as possible, so it doesn't matter to me that they exist at all. For me personally, DAII's system is preferable. Like KiddDaBeauty just said, this way you don't have a perfect charmer, but a character that only has specific ways of coercing.

[stonemyst]

I would like to build a inspiring presence by doing deeds not just being smart with a silver toung. The same for intimidate doing merc quests and threatning people. I want play style to decide how your conversation goes.

[snackrat]

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.

At first I missed this skill, but now... I agree with this. Personality/reputation based would be preferred. ESPECIALLY since to persuade, you needed cunning, and to intimidate, strength. Rogues weren't very scary, warriors weren't very personable, and I guess all mages were weak-limbed brats because they couldn't coerce ANYTHING - at least, not without potentially gimping your build so you could pick 'I win!'.

[PaulSX]

not only the Coercion skill, they need to bring the whole non-combat skill system in DAO back.

[goofyomnivore]

I hated the DA:O coercion system. Very rarely did it back fire and it was pretty much the best option always to take in dialogues. I actually thought this was one of the things DA ][ did really well with Hawke's personality dictating the persuasion chances and options. It still had too high of a success rate though.

Modifié par strive, 26 septembre 2012 - 03:55 .