110 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkKnightHolmes]

I prefer the DAO persuasion. I don't care if it's not realistic, the whole point of persuasion or intimidate skills is to get out of a situation.

[In Exile]

WotanAnubis wrote...

I didn't much like Human Revolution's 'Conversation Battles' because they had clearly defined win/lose conditions. In those, Adam was always after a single goal. But that didn't matter that much because the player didn't have that much influence on Adam's personality (outside of getting to voice your opinion on how much you like your augments). They are neat set-pieces at best, but are also incredibly limited.

But - in a sense - all persuasion is like that. It's defined win/lose (i.e., persuade or not). The way DX:HR did it was controved, because it was clearly boxed out as a Conversation Battle ™. But it was fun, and challenging, because there was no "I Win" button you could click by putting enough points in the box.

Compare this to Dragon Age: Origins and the resolution of the Dalish Questline. You can either kill all werewolves for Zathrian, persuade the werewolves to kill and turn the Dalish or persuade Zathrian to let go of his revenge and cure the werewolves. Granted, only the last two are accomplished through conversations. Even so, how would this work in HR-style conversation battle? Is 'winning' always persuading Zathrian to let go? But what if you want to have werewolves for your army instead of elves? Do you have to 'lose' on purpose? Or will 'losing' mean that you'll be forced to kill the werewolves for Zathrian and there is no way to get the werewolves because these conversation battles are so damn binary in their outcome?

Well, no. If you want to persuade Zathrian, you enter into a "conversation battle" (so to speak) with him. It has a defined win-lose because you choose to set it up that way, as the player. You can create multiple outcomes, too - you can suceed partway in conversations (like with any negotiation).

No, I think I much prefer the way Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines did it. You had 3 'Coercion' skills in that game (Persuasion, Seduction, Intimidation) and they all mattered differently in different situations (though, since Bloodlines was, unfortunately, incredibly unpolished Persuasion was pretty much the best one).
But it didn't stop there. They weren't automatic win buttons. Often, in the more important conversations, you'd either first have to set up your argument before getting to the win line or you'd hit the blue Persuasion line first and then lay out the rest of your argument through regular conversation. They were Win Buttons, sure, but they weren't automatic win buttons, which I think is an important distinction. (OK, sometimes they were automatic win buttons, but usually only in less important conversations during sidequests or something.)
And, of course, sometimes how you resolved quests or how you treated certain characters in the past also influenced the conversation you could have.
It was all very neat, I thought.

They weren't automatic I wins? I never found that I had a problem with persuasion in MoTB.

[In Exile]

J.C. Blade wrote...

Because you're building a character who's better at talking his way through a hostile garrison than fighting his way through it? Are you building a character with high INT and CHA or are you building a character with high STR and DEX? Or a mix of either? Invest in one, lose in the other. 

But how does that even make sense (from a gameplay POV)?

You could easily have high STR/INT character, or a high DEX/CHA character, who would be great at some types of persuasion and not others.

We could have a much richer RPG experience if we decoupled combat from non-combat.

The same with combat talents. I had a character in DAO who could talk her way through anything but when combat started she kept waaaaaay back out of line of fire.

In DA:O I had an arcane engine of death that could solo entire armies of darkspawn and was the most silver-tongued man in Ferelden. Because the DA:O system is broken.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:48 .

[MrCrabby]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In general I like the idea of having party members be a valid option if you have the correct party for the particular task, even if the execution could be improved upon (though frankly I don't see much issue with the execution TBH). It can be entertaining, and I think works well as long as the options are logical and frequent enough to contribute to the thought process of party make up.

I agree with you 100%...having certain things happen based on who is in the party gives the game better depth. I would also like to see the dialogue system from Alpha Protocol as you mentioned. In that game there were no skill checks...you just had to be clever and pick your words wisely. If you screwed up than there were no second chances because you couldn't backtrack.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Please no dialogue skills, I dont know why anyone would even want these, if there is a way to solve problems through diplomacy rather than warfare then it should be based on the player digging up the right info, having the right tool for the job or buttering up the right people and not through investing points into the "I WIN" or "Get out of tricky situations free" skill.

disagree greatly here.
it is a skill. you either invest a point it in a non combat talent or a combat one.
after all you sacrifice combat talents for "pesuade" skills. this is character building after all.
And it is not that you are going to get through every combat away by talking.
Also with persuade you could negotiate prices at stores , cnvinve someone to give up information.
Not everything has to be combat.

Disagree all you want but it still doesnt change the fact that a "persuade" skill has nothing to offer gameplay wise, I understand you want more options to handle situations including being able to talk your way out of some problems however it shouldnt exist as a skill that allows you to pick the highlighted option that pretty much gets you the best outcome or allows you to skip tricky situations without a scratch. If there is to be the option to talk your way through situations then the player should at least have to study up on their target, learn their desires and find a suitable bribe or learn their fears and use them against them.

To use an example from the Witcher 2 there is a quest where you have to retrieve the Dun Banner's standard from a crypt but in order to retrieve it you need to get past the wraith of a soldier who served under the Dun Banner. there are 2 options for handling the wraith, the first is just fighting the wraith and taking the standard once the wraith has been dispersed, the second is to convince the wraith that you are a surviving member of the Dun Banner and you are there to retrieve the Standard, however to actually do this you need to learn about the Dun Banner and pick the right responses to the wraiths questions, it is not as simple as just picking the "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" option.

[Wynne]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I love Alpha Protocol's dialogue system. I don't know the details, but I get the impression it's a real challenge to do well, however. This just based on some panels I saw with Obsidian talking about the game. The web of how the conversation flowed was crazy haha.

That was super cool, yeah! You had to apply what you knew about the character you were speaking with in order to get through a conversation with someone's favor. It had a sort of dialogue wheel, too, but instead of paraphrases you had the intended tone of the line spelled out clearly.

For instance, you know one character is a really tough woman. She doesn't like a completely aloof attitude, nor does she appreciate a smartass. She likes a challenge, someone who lets her tease him and grumps back at her to sort of egg her on, so when you see "Sarcastic," "Professional," or "Challenging" pop up on the screen, you know what's going to make her a happy woman. This makes it feel like a pretty genuine interaction because it tests the player's knowledge of the character and whether their vision of the PC would respond the right way. The game pushes you to learn its characters' quirks, and that was awesome. 

If only there'd been an Alpha Protocol with a female main character. A girl can dream. But I still loved that game because of its conversation system (and gameplay too, but of course that's not what this thread is about.) 

[DMan7733]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

To use an example from the Witcher 2 there is a quest where you have to retrieve the Dun Banner's standard from a crypt but in order to retrieve it you need to get past the wraith of a soldier who served under the Dun Banner. there are 2 options for handling the wraith, the first is just fighting the wraith and taking the standard once the wraith has been dispersed, the second is to convince the wraith that you are a surviving member of the Dun Banner and you are there to retrieve the Standard, however to actually do this you need to learn about the Dun Banner and pick the right responses to the wraiths questions, it is not as simple as just picking the "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" option.

That is a completely different situation. If you are going to ask for more gold for completing a job, will the guy interview you about himself to see if you have stalked him enough to deserve more gold. There should never be a "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" moment, because you would want to know if they are lieing... but if it's in another instance and the option is "(persuade) That was a lot harder than I realised, can you spare a little more gold?" that makes sense, (NO, you need to tell me my favourite ice-cream flavour and the fact that my sister who is an apostate was a slave first before I'll pay you more.) for minor things it works, but major plotpoints/discussions need to involve a more "conversation oriented" way to get your way, with the skill only providing a bonus. (Level 1 persuade gets you one extra life, level two get's you 2, level 3 makes it easier to finish a conversation in your favour, level 4 get's you an extra life and characters are more likely to tell you about themselves naturally before the conversation)

[Bondari the Reloader]

DMan7733 wrote...

for minor things it works, but major plotpoints/discussions need to involve a more "conversation oriented" way to get your way, with the skill only providing a bonus. (Level 1 persuade gets you one extra life, level two get's you 2, level 3 makes it easier to finish a conversation in your favour, level 4 get's you an extra life and characters are more likely to tell you about themselves naturally before the conversation)

I think this idea of more points in persuade = more chances to successfully persuade someone is an interesting one. Maybe persuade could be set up as a sub-menu on the dialog wheel like investigate was in DAII with multiple options within it. If you have no points in persuade, this menu doesn't appear. If you have one point, you get one chance to pick the right answer, and for each successive point you get another chance, like DMan said. This would prevent persuade from becoming an automatic win, and it encourages players to pay attention to major characters so they have a better chance of getting it right on the first try.

[NomadDC]

IMHO: I'd rather go back to DAO dialogue system, even if it means that my character will not speak again.

[darrylzero]

Wherever possible -- and I know this might not be all that often -- I'd love to option to persuade via digging up dirt or calling in favors or some such thing. As a roguish Hawke, I always thought finding ways to manipulate my somewhat tense but mostly pretty good relationship with the captain of the guard was underutilized.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

DMan7733 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

To use an example from the Witcher 2 there is a quest where you have to retrieve the Dun Banner's standard from a crypt but in order to retrieve it you need to get past the wraith of a soldier who served under the Dun Banner. there are 2 options for handling the wraith, the first is just fighting the wraith and taking the standard once the wraith has been dispersed, the second is to convince the wraith that you are a surviving member of the Dun Banner and you are there to retrieve the Standard, however to actually do this you need to learn about the Dun Banner and pick the right responses to the wraiths questions, it is not as simple as just picking the "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" option.

That is a completely different situation. If you are going to ask for more gold for completing a job, will the guy interview you about himself to see if you have stalked him enough to deserve more gold. There should never be a "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" moment, because you would want to know if they are lieing... but if it's in another instance and the option is "(persuade) That was a lot harder than I realised, can you spare a little more gold?" that makes sense, (NO, you need to tell me my favourite ice-cream flavour and the fact that my sister who is an apostate was a slave first before I'll pay you more.) for minor things it works, but major plotpoints/discussions need to involve a more "conversation oriented" way to get your way, with the skill only providing a bonus. (Level 1 persuade gets you one extra life, level two get's you 2, level 3 makes it easier to finish a conversation in your favour, level 4 get's you an extra life and characters are more likely to tell you about themselves naturally before the conversation)

Of course the example I described cant be used for every situation as it is just one example of how handling problems through conversation should work. Of course it would be stupid if every character gave you a pop quiz every time you try to persuade them into giving more gold for services rendered however at the same time persuasion isnt just about how convincingly a character can say a certain phrase like "(persuade) That was a lot harder than I realised, can you spare a little more gold?". Persuasion is also about reading people and deciding the best way to approach a conversation based on your observations, certain people and characters respond better than others to things like charm, intimidation or wisdom, in its most simple form you could ascertain that a timid character might be intimidated into giving up the goods where a pompous ass might respond more favorably to a good ego stroking, to take it further you could learn that a certain character has a treasured artifact and might be more cooperative should you threaten to harm it. I believe that this is the sort of thing that should be figured out by the player rather than be determined by a skill, it would be like instead of having the player solve puzzles you just give the character a skill called puzzle solving and determine their effectiveness of overcomming certain obstacles by the number of points put into the skill and the percentage chance for success.

[Veex]

I'd like to see them integrate Fallout: New Vegas' conversation system where persuasion and conversation checks integrated your combat and crafting skills as well. The talent and skill systems are obviously different, but if you were to be a master poison maker for example, perhaps your usual "intimidate" options that required a high coercion skill could be coupled with threatening someone with an acid bath.

Just a thought.

[Sidney]

Never liked the instant win button of persuade/intimidate. In a world of a lot of silly powers those seem even more stupid than most just trying to come up with any logical reason they exist. Toss in that it feels like lazy gameplay. If anything I'd rather have the old, old, BG reaction system where who your character is changes how the NPC's react to you.

[Imp of the Perverse]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I really like the "conversation battles" in Human Revolution.

Although I think a system like this would innately limit the application of a coercion skill, since creating those is going to be more challenging/expensive, and at the same time having them happen too frequently could possibly get annoying as well?

I was really happy to read this, I thought DXHR had one of the best conversation systems I've come across. One of the keys to making it work imo was providing the exact wording of the first sentence or so of each response, as well as a good description of the tone the reply is trying to take. It would require some changes to DA2's dialog wheel, but nothing too drastic.

As for how frequently it should be used, I thought Deus Ex had it about right. I'd imagine dragon age would have a lot more opportunities to use it, but it wouldn't have to be quite as deep of a conversation every time, for something like haggling over a reward it could be 2 or 3 responses rather than 5 or 6.

I do also like having situations where companions can bail you out. These could stay in, maybe let you bypass or shorten some of the trickier conversations. You could even have some trick options in there, companions that just make things worse, provided it's logical enough to be something a savvy player could avoid (like don't try to have Anders talk down an angry templar.)

[Palipride47]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I really like the "conversation battles" in Human Revolution.

Although I think a system like this would innately limit the application of a coercion skill, since creating those is going to be more challenging/expensive, and at the same time having them happen too frequently could possibly get annoying as well?

I was really happy to read this, I thought DXHR had one of the best conversation systems I've come across. One of the keys to making it work imo was providing the exact wording of the first sentence or so of each response, as well as a good description of the tone the reply is trying to take. It would require some changes to DA2's dialog wheel, but nothing too drastic.

As for how frequently it should be used, I thought Deus Ex had it about right. I'd imagine dragon age would have a lot more opportunities to use it, but it wouldn't have to be quite as deep of a conversation every time, for something like haggling over a reward it could be 2 or 3 responses rather than 5 or 6.

I do also like having situations where companions can bail you out. These could stay in, maybe let you bypass or shorten some of the trickier conversations. You could even have some trick options in there, companions that just make things worse, provided it's logical enough to be something a savvy player could avoid (like don't try to have Anders talk down an angry templar.)

I find "DXHR" being quoted a lot for how to do voiced and dialogue systems right, unfortunateIy have never played it, so I can't opine on it.

However, I would ask to stick with DA2's system, and expand on it, as the person I'm quoting listed as ideas (bolded). 

I actually don't like DAO's system. I mean, I do, in that 4 skill points and just enough cunning/strength = Jedi. No character I made had less than 25 cunning, just so I could persuade everything. 

But having that system work for everyone gives no incentive (in the case of DA2) to choose any other personality. Why should I be aggressive when I can still successfully threaten everything? Why be saracastic when I can still lie thorugh my teeth and "win" with Diplo/Agrro Hawke. 

I think it can be improved and expanded on, and the dialogue wheel has its own serious issues, but I think DA2 was ultimately superior, in regards to persuasion in dialogue, and it gave a reason to choose all the personalities (talk down/lie/threaten). 

[Aulis Vaara]

Face of Evil wrote...

One option would be to marry certain coercion options to class instead of dialogue tone. For instance, Fighters would gain the ability to Intimidate opponents, Rogues could Bluff them and Mages could use Jedi Mind Trick. (Or something else. I'm just throwing ideas at the wall right now.) These would be situational, like Rock, Paper, Scissors; you couldn't always use Intimidate, Bluff or Jedi Mind Trick in every situation, but at least one of them would work.

For instance, the Inquisitor needs to get information from Steve the Informant, who is willing to exchange secrets for money. Steve is too smart to be bluffed and too strong-minded for Jedi Mind Trick, but Warriors have an Intimidate option that would let the Inquisitor avoid paying Steve.

Later on, the Inquisitor must pass Rex the Guard. Intimidate and Jedi Mind Trick won't work so Warriors and Mages must fight Rex, but Bluff lets the Rogue walk right past.

And finally, the Inquisitor has the option of getting a key from Sara the Noble to open a treasure chest. Bluff and Intimidate are not options here, but Jedi Mind Trick proves to be an excellent panty-remover and the Inquisitor seduces Sara into giving him/her the key.

I don't know if that's a great idea, but the player would at least know what Coercion options are open to them from the start and would at least be denied certain options.

This is a big part of my dislike for classes. Everything gets pigeonholed and the classes become nothing more than stereotypes. There's no reason why a mage or rogue can't intimidate, nor is there a reason why a warrior or mage can't bluff, nor is it impossible for a warrior or rogue to be persuasive.

Characters should be defined by their skills and talents, not by whatever arbitrary classes the game developer chose to implement in the game.

[vortex216]

I liked the skills in DAO. If w as a warrior, it would be a little hard for me though. I had to ivest in combat training and coercion. Tactics was useful, i liked survival for the nature resistence, and you needed at least one poison to use bombs. AND you could only get one skill every three levels. Overall though, i think it was great. I want it back.

[Rolenka]

When you make deep, branching conversations with lots of different outcomes, you are making lots of content the player will never see. Enjoy your 10-hour campaign of Talk Talk Revolution.

I hope you find spending four minutes getting a sentence of nonessential lore out of the guard captain really enriching.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

google_calasade wrote...

Dialogue wheel = garbage. I'm rather astounded they kept it given the amount of complains I've seen about it.

I very much like what Face of Evil has proposed. He saved me some typing.

Dialogue wheel worked fine in the ME Trilogy and in Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning (a non-BW game that borrowed the mechanic; althought that game had both the wheel and listed dialogue options, strangely enough) where Persuade options actually existed. What we got instead in DA 2 was "You there companion, what do you think?", which wasn't quite as much fun as manipulating people through charm or intimidation.

[DMan7733]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

DMan7733 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

To use an example from the Witcher 2 there is a quest where you have to retrieve the Dun Banner's standard from a crypt but in order to retrieve it you need to get past the wraith of a soldier who served under the Dun Banner. there are 2 options for handling the wraith, the first is just fighting the wraith and taking the standard once the wraith has been dispersed, the second is to convince the wraith that you are a surviving member of the Dun Banner and you are there to retrieve the Standard, however to actually do this you need to learn about the Dun Banner and pick the right responses to the wraiths questions, it is not as simple as just picking the "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" option.

That is a completely different situation. If you are going to ask for more gold for completing a job, will the guy interview you about himself to see if you have stalked him enough to deserve more gold. There should never be a "(persuade) Dude I am like totally a member of the Dun Banner, you gotta believe me" moment, because you would want to know if they are lieing... but if it's in another instance and the option is "(persuade) That was a lot harder than I realised, can you spare a little more gold?" that makes sense, (NO, you need to tell me my favourite ice-cream flavour and the fact that my sister who is an apostate was a slave first before I'll pay you more.) for minor things it works, but major plotpoints/discussions need to involve a more "conversation oriented" way to get your way, with the skill only providing a bonus. (Level 1 persuade gets you one extra life, level two get's you 2, level 3 makes it easier to finish a conversation in your favour, level 4 get's you an extra life and characters are more likely to tell you about themselves naturally before the conversation)

Of course the example I described cant be used for every situation as it is just one example of how handling problems through conversation should work. Of course it would be stupid if every character gave you a pop quiz every time you try to persuade them into giving more gold for services rendered however at the same time persuasion isnt just about how convincingly a character can say a certain phrase like "(persuade) That was a lot harder than I realised, can you spare a little more gold?". Persuasion is also about reading people and deciding the best way to approach a conversation based on your observations, certain people and characters respond better than others to things like charm, intimidation or wisdom, in its most simple form you could ascertain that a timid character might be intimidated into giving up the goods where a pompous ass might respond more favorably to a good ego stroking, to take it further you could learn that a certain character has a treasured artifact and might be more cooperative should you threaten to harm it. I believe that this is the sort of thing that should be figured out by the player rather than be determined by a skill, it would be like instead of having the player solve puzzles you just give the character a skill called puzzle solving and determine their effectiveness of overcomming certain obstacles by the number of points put into the skill and the percentage chance for success.

I think I understand what your saying, I imagine if it was in DA: O as you talk to them different information would come up in brackets like: (His eyes go to the floor as he mentions his sister) which would then open up options such as "You're not telling me everything".  In more important stuff It makes sense to actually investigate, but certain quests will either be entirely about gathering information on someone (read: Confront Jack about slavers or investigate Jacks connection with slavers). Because unless Jack has been brough up before, it might be hard to know where to go to find info... do I go to the pub? or to the Brothel? I need some of that information first, rather than go around town looking for the NPC that comes up with the option "Do you know Jack?".

It works and works well, but requires alot of thought to be put into it, so it doesn't end up people looking for information on someone that doesn't exist. (The pickpocket skill would work well)

BTW would you recommend the witcher 2? I never got around to playing the original witcher game, so is it necessary to understand 2nd better?

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

DMan7733 wrote...

BTW would you recommend the witcher 2? I never got around to playing the original witcher game, so is it necessary to understand 2nd better?

Definately, it has got to be one of the best RPGs I have played in years. That being said however it is one of those games you either love or you hate with plenty of gamers on either side so take it for what you will. It isnt absolutely neccessary to play the first as the plot in the second has little to do with the plot in the first (only a cutscene at the end of first that serves as a teaser for the second) however there is the over arching plot of Geralt regaining his lost memory that spans the series so it would probably be beneficial if you play the first before the second.

One thing I should point out is that the conversation system in the Witcher 2 isnt as fleshed out as what I am talking about in case that is what piqued your interest, it still uses the same persuasion, intimidate and axii sign hex skills with their effectiveness being determined by how much you use them. The Dun Banner example was the only recent example I could think of where handling situations through dialogue was based on the player figuring it out for themself rather than be determined by a skill.

[esper]

I am going to agree with Palipride on this, I would much rather see da2's system expanded on.

Failing that I would much rather see a system where there is a persuade option per attribute:

Strength/magic: Intimidation, strength for rouge and warriors (since strenght suggest that you have a certain muscle mass that can look intimidation) and magic for mages since magic is their source of strenght.

Cunning: Lie/charm persuation, generally anything that requires you to twist your words around.

Dextery: Deft of hand-ness, generally anything that requires you to subtly influence your surrondings.

Willpower: Resisting manipulation attempts from demons and other attempts where plain stubborness can convince someone. After all we have all seen someone get their way by just refusing to back down at all.

Constituion: I am drawing a blank here, but perhaps leadership, because... uh... the main characther appears to be healthy and well balanced.

Some targets is more easy to approach with certain methods, the demon in the Deep Road for example would be and intimidation or willpower rolls, since demons can be intimidated and fade creatures generally respect great will power.

And if we get and coerce system back no persuation check should have more than a 80-90 % success rate at any roll at their highest, or else we just ends up with origins jedi tricks.

[Bondari the Reloader]

esper wrote...


I am going to agree with Palipride on this, I would much rather see da2's system expanded on.

Failing that I would much rather see a system where there is a persuade option per attribute:

Strength/magic: Intimidation, strength for rouge and warriors (since strenght suggest that you have a certain muscle mass that can look intimidation) and magic for mages since magic is their source of strenght.

Cunning: Lie/charm persuation, generally anything that requires you to twist your words around.

Dextery: Deft of hand-ness, generally anything that requires you to subtly influence your surrondings.

Willpower: Resisting manipulation attempts from demons and other attempts where plain stubborness can convince someone. After all we have all seen someone get their way by just refusing to back down at all.

Constituion: I am drawing a blank here, but perhaps leadership, because... uh... the main characther appears to be healthy and well balanced.

Some targets is more easy to approach with certain methods, the demon in the Deep Road for example would be and intimidation or willpower rolls, since demons can be intimidated and fade creatures generally respect great will power.

And if we get and coerce system back no persuation check should have more than a 80-90 % success rate at any roll at their highest, or else we just ends up with origins jedi tricks.

I like the idea of having persuade be augmented by different stats. I still prefer having a persuasion skill as well, but I could definitely see it working in conjunction with stats. I especially like the idea of combining strength and magic for intimidation purposes, since both Morrigan and Flemeth clearly show that magic can be just as intimidating as brute force.

[Arppis]

I think going with "normal" conversation options would be the best. You just have to find the right way to appeal to the person. Much better than "I win" option.

[Cimeas]

Very simple. Allow us to invest attribute points into a diplomacy stat instead of say 'strength' or 'dexterity' and then have conversation checks.

Really, how hard is that?