110 réponses à ce sujet

[Yobel]

Burnouts3s3 wrote...

However, I felt that the persuasion system in DA2 was mishandled greatly. The only 2 ways I could pass a persuasion check in DA2 was: 1) use a branch of dialogue and 'hope' it would appear later in a conversation or 2) be lucky enough to have brought along the correct party member to help talk out a situation. Both times, I would have to reload and mix and match strategies to find out which path would be the best. While that seems like a good idea on paper, I much rather prefer the more conventional means of persuasion and have that be a catch-all situation with proper use of cunning stat. 

Actually, I would like a nice mix of both. If you don't have a skill to unlock wanted conversation option, you could bring a party member that helps you out and talk your way out of a fight for example. You really don't have to load a game everytime something goes 'wrong' - just experiment with party members and your cunning skill when another playthrough comes along.

[esper]

Bondari the Reloader wrote...

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.

Yes, mages shouldn't really rely on stenght for intimidation, that would just be silly when magic is feared in Thedas.

I guess it could work in combination, such as this hypothetical setting:

The Baron has to give of acces to an area but he doesn't want to because the hero are dirty peasant  we to three additional option beside the just kill him for the key:

Intimidate: The players basic strength/magic + evtual skill rank in persuation (let's say that each rank is 10 extra point), vs. the Baron intimidation resistance which is at 80 because you are at his mansion with his guard and he is honestly difficult to scare. As 80 is properly far above what the players stats would ever be you will need persuation to pull it off.

Charm/Lie: The players basic cunning + rank in persuation vs the Baron charm resistance which is around 40 because he is really weak to flattery, this means that a high cunning player characther technically would be able to pull it off if they have really invested in cunning, but that is properly unlikely as focusing on one combat skill would set the player at the disadvantage.

Sleight of hand: The players basic + dextery score + persuation rank vs the Baron's resistiance which is set at 50 because it is didfficult for you to get close enough to actually steal, but it is doable.

That is how many option we typical have on the dialog wheel, but if persuation works as investigation we could potentially have all six attributes persuation skill avaible each time, I will leave it to the imagine how difficult they should be too pull off in this situation.

If the lowest level resistance to persuation attempts is set around (not presicely at) the highest attempt an avarage player would get in a class favored attribute it would mean that the persuation non-combat skill would give an good and rewarding bonus (since you don't have to focus on just one attribute, but focusing would make it easier, ). That should be the most flexieble,most open to roleplay, I can come up with on the fly

As an eventuality and to further add to the removal off the I win bottom the Baron's restistance against the various attempts could have a random effect too, like, perhaps the intimidation resistance is somewhere between 70-90 instead of a flat 80,

or it is 80, but with a 1% chance of sucess no matter stats, and a 10 % chance of failure no matter stats (remember the intimidation was the difficult one), the cunning one (which was the easiest) could have a 8 % chance of win no matter stat and a 5 % of lose no matter stats.    

[Dysjong]

Maybe it just me but just because you can either persuade, bluff or initimidate someone, that does'nt make it the right choice.

My only real complain regarding the dialog system in Mass effect and Dragon age: origins, was that they were made as "I win" no matter what. Atleast in Dragon age 2, there were no "I win" option.

Look, maybe the dialog system needs something different. They way i would prefere is to use Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate to convince somebody that you are right and they are wrong. From there, you will see what happens next, sometimes for the good, other times for the worse. Just because one Can do this, doesn't mean that is the optimal solution, what if the NPCs plan is actually better then the players idea but the player convinced the NPC to follow with it.

Another thing is to read the person you meet, like sense motive from D&D. It's one thing to have a silver-tongue but it's a whole different matter if you Can read the person, that way to improve your own odds, of course it all comes down the players own choice.

Finally, there is the codex. Deus ex had it right regarding with the information you Can find and use it to your own advantage. If i play as i rogue and i start a conversation with a mage, well if i have learned or found information regarding the fade or magic, maybe it can help me out, just maybe.

Just my thoughts.

Modifié par Dysjong, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[LilyasAvalon]

Dysjong wrote...

Maybe it just me but just because you can either persuade, bluff or initimidate someone, that does'nt make it the right choice.

My only real complain regarding the dialog system in Mass effect and Dragon age: origins, was that they were made as "I win" no matter what. Atleast in Dragon age 2, there were no "I win" option.

Look, maybe the dialog system needs something different. They way i would prefere is to use Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate to convince somebody that you are right and they are wrong. From there, you will see what happens next, sometimes for the good, other times for the worse. Just because one Can do this, doesn't mean that is the optimal solution, what if the NPCs plan is actually better then the players idea but the player convinced the NPC to follow with it.

Another thing is to read the person you meet, like sense motive from D&D. It's one thing to have a silver-tongue but it's a whole different matter if you Can read the person, that way to improve your own odds, of course it all comes down the players own choice.

Finally, there is the codex. Deus ex had it right regarding with the information you Can find and use it to your own advantage. If i play as i rogue and i start a conversation with a mage, well if i have learned or found information regarding the fade or magic, maybe it can help me out, just maybe.

Just my thoughts.

I don't think that's very fair personally. DA:O and DA2 were two completely different games in terms of dialogue and roleplaying. The Warden was a blank slate which could be moulded by how we choose to advance them, hence skills and that.

Hawke was kind of a pre made character, we just got to choose if they were 'good', 'sarcastic' or 'violent', which was, to be frank, kind of boring.

[Dysjong]

Atleast there were no "I WIN" option, it all came down to what you would do and see if it works out. Remember that quest where you had to escort a qunari mage? There were plenty of ways to handle it. First time i did that one, i played a mage and when i told them that, they got pissed. To make it worse, the sarabas choiced to end it's own life. I just wasted my time on those, because i thought that the mage would prefere his freedom. Waste of time but in a good way, i continued with the game.

[esper]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Maybe it just me but just because you can either persuade, bluff or initimidate someone, that does'nt make it the right choice.

My only real complain regarding the dialog system in Mass effect and Dragon age: origins, was that they were made as "I win" no matter what. Atleast in Dragon age 2, there were no "I win" option.

Look, maybe the dialog system needs something different. They way i would prefere is to use Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate to convince somebody that you are right and they are wrong. From there, you will see what happens next, sometimes for the good, other times for the worse. Just because one Can do this, doesn't mean that is the optimal solution, what if the NPCs plan is actually better then the players idea but the player convinced the NPC to follow with it.

Another thing is to read the person you meet, like sense motive from D&D. It's one thing to have a silver-tongue but it's a whole different matter if you Can read the person, that way to improve your own odds, of course it all comes down the players own choice.

Finally, there is the codex. Deus ex had it right regarding with the information you Can find and use it to your own advantage. If i play as i rogue and i start a conversation with a mage, well if i have learned or found information regarding the fade or magic, maybe it can help me out, just maybe.

Just my thoughts.

I don't think that's very fair personally. DA:O and DA2 were two completely different games in terms of dialogue and roleplaying. The Warden was a blank slate which could be moulded by how we choose to advance them, hence skills and that.

Hawke was kind of a pre made character, we just got to choose if they were 'good', 'sarcastic' or 'violent', which was, to be frank, kind of boring.

I disagree my Hawkes were not the least pre-made and a thousand times more multi-facettet than blank avatar Warden, but perhaps we should not derail it away from the persuation system. 

The persuation system in Origins was broken, there were no reason to not pick the 5 tier coercion other than delibrately nerf you warden. You companions had access to all the other skills and once you had the fifth tier and there was skill point enough for both coercion and the combat skill. And once you had the fifth tier it was an autowin bottom which was frankly boring since it had cost you next to nothing to gain. 

[Morroian]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I don't think that's very fair personally. DA:O and DA2 were two completely different games in terms of dialogue and roleplaying. The Warden was a blank slate which could be moulded by how we choose to advance them, hence skills and that.

Hawke was kind of a pre made character, we just got to choose if they were 'good', 'sarcastic' or 'violent', which was, to be frank, kind of boring.

No offence but people keep saying this and it is wrong. Hawke was as much of a pre-made character as any of the individual wardens. In DAO we just had more of a choice of background.

As for a persuasion system like others have said the DAO system is an I win button and not much of a role playing system, DA23 was a step in a better diredction and could be expanded upon.

Modifié par Morroian, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:57 .

[Todd23]

Cimeas wrote...

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?

Harder than you'd think.

[samgurl775]

I'm fine with a dialogue wheel, I just want some type of coercion skill. Similar to what's in ME1 and DAO.

[Taritu]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I don't mind this either. In fact, I'd like to see them interact more. I'd just like to see more ways added around encounters. To me, most conversations felt like they only had one or two ways around it in DA2. Maybe they didn't but it sure did seem like DAO gave you far more ways out of an encounter. I don't remember many situations where they had five different outcomes in DA2...

I could be wrong. Maybe it's just the illusion DAO gave me. It sure did feel different though. Maybe the dialogue wheel is fooling me.

I'd need to be reminded of some of the DAO ones just because it's been a long time (and even then I only played through the whole game once).

Bandits outside Lothering.  That conversation can go a bunch of ways.  My favorite was intimidating them into giving me money.  I laughed myself sick, probably my favorite conversation in either DA2 game.  (The other one being the boneless women comment from Snarky FemHawke.  So wrong, so goddamn funny, though not an example of a complex convo.)

[naminco]

Darkstorne wrote...

Too many games rely on combat mechanics as the sole method of testing a player's skill. RPGs, particularly character-driven RPGs like Dragon Age, would benefit so damn much from a dialogue system that requires genuine thought and strategy to debate with opponents. I'm not saying it should happen in every single conversation, but perhaps the same frequency to which elite and boss level enemies appear in relation to common enemies. A couple of times or more throughout each quest thread, with dozens of optional extras to pursue in a poltical side of the game - related to the castle maintenance and interaction with other nobles perhaps?

I think this is a very interesting idea, and I would get behind it except for the very nature of the dialogue wheel itself: it paraphrases what the voiced character is going to say. The option it gives you might be interpreted different ways by different players, so the tone of what they think they are saying might differ greatly from what they actually say. For example, I know there were some sarcastic options I took in DA2
that I thought would be harmless but were in fact very insulting, though
don't ask me to recall which ones exactly. Also, on a smaller note, in Merril's Act 3 quest I actually wanted my Hawke to say "She loved you," like the wheel said, but nooooooo.

Naturally, this can be overcome by just reloading last save and trying again (but this annoys many people) or by writing out exactly what will be said (but reading it and then hearing it might also annoy many people.) Even then, the differences in how people think vary enough that interpreting exact phrases could screw something up.

It is certainly an ideal to keep in mind, however. I support anything that improves my roleplaying experience.