318 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

chuckles471 wrote...

Maybe like CJ from San Andreas getting more muscular as he gets stronger.  Actually show the physical changes from getting better at skill e.g like zoom in on the characters hands and show them getting more callouses as the get better at lockpicking, maybe show like an effect behind a mages eyes as they get better at magic, have a rogue's stance become better as they become better at dodging, maybe scars for toughness etc. etc.  (Yes, I know these are just "hidden" stats).

Right... so we would all end up comparing our screenshots to a guide so we could know what the hidden stats are.

[AlanC9]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Or not use any values at all. Make an RPG where there is no skill progression whatsoever, where characters start and finish with the same skills at the same level.

Doesn't work well for party-based RPGs.

How come? Or is it just that such a game wouldn't be called an RPG?

I'm hard-pressed to think of an RPG without a levelling mechanic at all, except for original Traveller. Though some of the older systems had rates so slow that you could play for a long time without making a level.

[Volus Warlord]

Seduction is the next logical step.

[philippe willaume]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I hate it when I need to reference other works in what I would like to see, but in all honesty, they should make it like DE:HR's normal conversations. Having the persuasion option opens up the route for new dialogue options to attempt, and that is a key word, attempt to persuade someone into doing what you want. It's not about using a high persuasion skill to create an I win button and trick the person into doing what you want in a single choice.

Make it a three or four option sequence event, where you need to figure out the best way to go about negotiating with this person so it feels like we had to work hard to get the outcome we wanted, and not just have a shortcut presented.

If that makes any sense.

yes it does, but i am bias i agree with the concept.

phil

[Parmida]

I want to mind control people. It's badass!

[Zelto]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Unless you wanted to start using irrational values? Like i cubed?

I just have to point out, i^3= -i

[MerinTB]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

In Exile wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...
could be like Fallout NV where you fail unless you have the correct skills/level? Try to threaten someone with 8 strength and they are like "lol due whatever" or being a Blood Mage who only just unlocked that skill tree and when you try to mind break someone you fail.

That's still an I-WIN button. It just has more prerequisites until you can click I-WIN. 

:| So is being the main character. 

Playing a game is figuring out which buttons to hit in which order and which frequency to "win" so, yes, unless the game is simply an interactive novel with set outcomes regardless of what you do...

every game is "so many requisite (insert things here, like button presses or item collection) before you can click I-WIN."

----

On to EA's concept that Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex boiled down to "dialog combat" - you cannot avoid people with walkthroughs, strategy guides, what-have-you, trying to metagame ever choice to get the "arguably best result."  Some people play games that way.  Let them.  Stop trying to fight against them - you can't.

Focus instead of giving options, and making most if not all of the options interesting.

I've played Alpha Protocol a RIDICULOUS number of times, and everytime I'm playing a different version of Mike.  You can "win" the game, or conversations, SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS in AP that there is no "right" choice.  That's the games largest strength - there is not "right way" to do things.  Only "your way" and then it depends if you execute your way well enough to succeed!

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Or not use any values at all. Make an RPG where there is no skill progression whatsoever, where characters start and finish with the same skills at the same level.

Doesn't work well for party-based RPGs.

How come? Or is it just that such a game wouldn't be called an RPG?

I'm hard-pressed to think of an RPG without a levelling mechanic at all, except for original Traveller. Though some of the older systems had rates so slow that you could play for a long time without making a level.

I think I even heard the WotC guys in one of the most reason D&D Podcasts say that "level progression is not what makes a game an RPG."  And I whole-heartedly agree with them.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Level progression does not define an RPG... but it does define many games.

Whether that is increased levels, skills, equipment, gear, weapons, power ups, more lives, etc., isn't really the point. The player needs to feel a point at which they feel stronger, better, more powerful... even if that moment is fleeting.

Pac-Man has the power pellets. Mario has the glowing star. Sports games have the ability to improve stats or trades to recruit better players. Heck, even Monopoly allows you to purchase houses and hotels that make your properties "more powerful." RPGs allow you to play a character who is on some sort of mission or quest. What prevents the player from just strolling up to the boss's castle and killing them right off the bat is often level-progression.

I don't think a PnP game or an RPG video game requires stats... but I would say they need (or at least strongly benefit from) some form of progression.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I strongly object to the "I WIN" button.  I would instead like something like this:

SergeantSnookie wrote...

I usually prefer it when games get you to legitimately think about how to persuade this person and choose the right options rather than have a mechanic for it, IMO.

I really like this idea, but not for the same reason.  I don't like the idea of having the player's skill decide the outcome.  However, I would like the player to be able to control how his character behaves.  A system like that would allow the player to decide how his character would try to persuade someone of something, not merely that he would try to be persuasive.  If the player wants his character to try to persuade through intimidation, he shuld be able to do that, even if intimidation is exactly the wrong thing to do in this specific circumstance.

What the "I WIN" button does is allow the player's character to succeed under all circumstances using any means, and that's silly.  That prevents the character's personality from affecting his performance, and for things like persuasion the character's personality absolutely should affect performance (beyond merely labelling him as "persuasive" or "unpersuasive").

Let me decide how my character behaves, and have the NPCs react accordingly.  If my character makes good choices, he'll get what he wants.  If my character makes bad choices, he won't.  Isn't that the whole point of roleplaying?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

What about a Speech stat that, instead of just choosing "Speech Skill Response" instead offers a couple different ways to Persuade? And different methods would be more effective with given NPCs (as well as other corresponding stats). This way, someone without Speech Skill points wouldn't be able to persuade an NPC, but if the player chose one method over another, it wouldn't guarantee success?

Here's a few Use Cases:

Scenario: Quincy the Inquisitor is trying to convince a sniveling, weak town guard to not throw a pick-pocket orphan into jail, who you need for information on a quest. 

High Str, no speech skill warrior - you are not given the option to persuade, so you must either fight or let the guard take the urchin. 

High Str, low speech skill warrior - you only have the option to bribe the guard with gold

High Str, med speech skill warrior - you can bribe and pay gold or use one of the following approaches: intimidation, smooth-talking, logic or empathy (getting the guard to feel bad about arresting an orphan). Intimidation is your best shot, since the guard appears to be spineless and you have high strength.

High Magic, med skill Mage - you can bribe or use one of the above listed approaches. Again, Intimidate works best here because the guard is spineless and your primary source of damage, Magic, is high.

Low Str, med speech skill warrior - you can bribe or use one of the above listed approaches. In this case, Intimidate would not be the best option (perhaps Empathetic or smooth-talking) because of your low strength as a warrior... but these other options are just as likely to fail as if you had a Strong warrior, so this type of NPC may be difficult to convince given your set up. 

High skill PC character - you can bribe or use any of the above skill options. Since you have a high skill, you are likely to succeed with either smooth-talking, logic or empathy. This results in a scenario where you can A) Roleplay the exact character you want and get perhaps better results, since the guard may resent you for bullying him, but may respect you for being empathetic or even confuse you for a city official or a superior if you smooth-talk him.


How does a system like that sound?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mai 2013 - 05:17 .

[Zelto]

A persuasion skill is no more arbitrary than a shield defence skill or a fireball skill. So I say bring it back unless you plan on removing all skill selections entirely and have a Oblivion type system where usage is the only factor (note: Skyrim actually goes the opposite way and introduces skills progress beyond usage)

The character based approach results in a DA:2 situation where if you want to be persuasive you must choose all of one type of response. This limits the game way more than a persuade skill ever will.

Beyond those two choices you have the randomly guess the correct sequence i.e Bastula in KOTOR. That’s fine for a highly developed character as Bastula was, as you can at least predict the likely response that will work, although even then it will likely require metagaming, but for joe-blogs who you just met it just becomes a roll the dice choice, in which case you might as well make it an actual dice roll within the mechanics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

What about a Speech stat that, instead of just choosing "Speech Skill Response" instead offers a couple different ways to Persuade? And different methods would be more effective with given NPCs (as well as other corresponding stats). This way, someone without Speech Skill points wouldn't be able to persuade an NPC, but if the player chose one method over another, it wouldn't guarantee success?

Here's a few Use Cases:

Scenario:
Quincy the Inquisitor is trying to convince a sniveling, weak town guard to not throw a pick-pocket orphan into jail, who you need for information on a quest. 

High Str, no speech skill warrior - you are not given the option to persuade, so you must either fight or let the guard take the urchin. 

High Str, low speech skill warrior - you only have the option to bribe the guard with gold

High Str, med speech skill warrior - you can bribe and pay gold or use one of the following approaches: intimidation, smooth-talking, logic or empathy (getting the guard to feel bad about arresting an orphan).
Intimidation is your best shot, since the guard appears to be spineless and you have high strength.

High Magic, med skill Mage - you can bribe or use one of the above listed approaches. Again, Intimidate works best here because the guard is spineless and your primary source of damage, Magic, is high.

Low Str, med speech skill warrior - you can bribe or use one of the above listed approaches. In this case, Intimidate would not be the best option (perhaps Empathetic or smooth-talking) because of your low strength as a warrior... but these other options are just as likely to fail as if you had a Strong warrior, so this type of NPC may be difficult to convince given your set up. 

High skill PC character - you can bribe or use any of the above skill options. Since you have a high skill, you are likely to succeed with either smooth-talking, logic or empathy. This results in a scenario where you can A) Roleplay the exact character you want and get perhaps better results, since the guard may resent you for bullying him, but may respect you for being empathetic or even confuse you for a city official or a superior if you smooth-talk him.

How does a system like that sound?

In principle that can work. You might also be able to do something like that without a speech skill at all, and just a Charisma stat.

I don't love your use of the magic stat, there, though. I don't see how the target of the intimidation is supposed to be aware of your character's magic stat or even that he's a mage.

Instead, if we just used Strength, Charisma, and Cunning we could have intimidation tied to strength, persuasion tied to charisma, and then special insight-based dialogue options (unlabelled) appear when the cunning was sufficient to trigger them.

That way, not only can a character choose the wrong type of persuasion given his target, he could also choose the wrong type of persuasion given his own skills (a character might perceive himself as more intimidating than he really is).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 mai 2013 - 05:24 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I would like the persuasion system to be identical to Fallout: New Vegas. It's exactly what I want in an RPG that's very focused on stats and character building. For exmaple, if the persuasion requirement is 50 and I only have a 35 in Speech, I will fail the persuasion attempt every time.

I don't want it to be like Fallout 3, where persuasion doesn't really exist and is entirely based on luck. In other words, you can have a 1% chance to persuade someone and fail many times. However, if you keep reloading your save you will eventually succeed even though you shouldn't.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 10 mai 2013 - 05:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In principle that can work. You might also be able to do something like that without a speech skill at all, and just a Charisma stat.

I don't love your use of the magic stat, there, though. I don't see how the target of the intimidation is supposed to be aware of your character's magic stat or even that he's a mage.
Instead, if we just used Strength, Charisma, and Cunning we could have intimidation tied to strength, persuasion tied to charisma, and then special insight-based dialogue options (unlabelled) appear when the cunning was sufficient to trigger them.
That way, not only can a character choose the wrong type of persuasion given his target, he could also choose the wrong type of persuasion given his own skills (a character might perceive himself as more intimidating than he really is).

Well, in regards to Magic, I assumed that just like the warrior might puff out his muscles or put his hand on a blade, a Mage might threateningly brandish their staff or even lean forward threatening and stick out a hand clutching a magical fireball. You know, use your imagination.

I figured the Cunning skill could be used for the Logic persuasions and for the Smooth-talking ones. There wasn't a Charisma stat in the DA games, so I didn't envision that but given that we are off the rails in this theory anyway, I don't see what that's a problem.

The only concern is, as always, this would result in lots of conversation options, which increases the work needed and the costs for a voiced PC like what we have with the DA games now. But, just thinking from a purely theoretical viewpoint, I think this system offers a lot of flexibility as well as options.

The follow-up question I would have for myself is "does the skill check result in a dice roll, where a Medium speech skill player could sometimes win, sometimes lose using the same options on the same NPC?" And I'm not sure, to be honest, how I would want that to work.

Out of curiosity, why would you want to give the persuade options to the player with no speech skill points?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mai 2013 - 05:34 .

[Zelto]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Out of curiosity, why would you want to give the persuade options to the player with no speech skill points?

I don't need to be a smooth talker to convince a lowly thug to hand over ill-gotten gains if I have a massive sword and an archer at my back...

Therefore persuade without speech. In DA:O it was under intimidate, where strength stats added to the coersion skill.

[Edit: Typo]

Modifié par Zelto, 10 mai 2013 - 05:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Out of curiosity, why would you want to give the persuade options to the player with no speech skill points?

Because it's possible to say the right thing through luck, rather than skill.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The only concern is, as always, this would result in lots of conversation options, which increases the work needed and the costs for a voiced PC like what we have with the DA games now.

I am not willing to accept a lesser dialogue system for the sake of voicing the characters.  I won't even entertain the suggestion that fewer options is better just because they are voiced.

[AlanC9]

OK, but then we're going off-topic for the thread and the board, since DA3 will have voiced characters.

[Fast Jimmy]

I am not willing to accept a lesser dialogue system for the sake of voicing the characters.  I won't even entertain the suggestion that fewer options is better just because they are voiced.

This is me being completely unsurprised.

That being said, I don't think Bioware inherently sees it the same way. Voiced PC is the way to go and if anything doesn't fit into that mold can be (easily) sacrificed. Not something I'm the least bit happy about, but what have you.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mai 2013 - 06:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't need to be a smooth talker to convince a lowly thug to hand over ill-gotten gains if I have a massive sword and an archer at my back...

Therefore persuade without speech. In DA:O it was under intimidate, where strength stats added to the coersion skill.

Fair enough. But I'd say it requires at least a basic level of finese to translate being able to crush people's skulls and then having people listen to what you say BECAUSE you can crush skulls. Looking and sounding menacing without actually visiting harm on others requires at least a little bit of suave-ness. What I would like is to have a minimum requirement of speech skill to even be offered the intimidate skill, requiring you to fight... but to have your enemies given the option to surrender during the fight if it is readily apparent you are going to beat them silly (and they are intelligent enough to communicate... giant spiders shouldn't be able to do this).

But that's just my own thoughts on the idea. Because otherwise, a strong warrior will be able to intimidate their way past anything without a point in the Speech skill... which means what's the point of having a Speech skill?

Because it's possible to say the right thing through luck, rather than skill.

But if the right thing can always be said without a speech skill, why bother with a speech skill? I know you hate using meta-gaming as a reason to design anything, but if I can look up a dialogue walk through to give me all the responses to get out of combat in the same way as if I had put all my skill points in a Speech skill, I can then put all points in a combat build, making me an uber-character just with a little research.

And... again... if you can do that, why even have a speech skill?

[Sir JK]

I've long argued against speech/persuasion/diplomacy skills. I think they're a really bad idea unless you're going to settle for the quick and dirty way.

These sort of skills, where you put points in them which determine how well you persuade someone lack any form of tactics or strategy in them. It does not matter much really, using these skills in a conversation is almost always the superior choice (unless you directly seek a fight or whatnot). They're clearly marked, easy to pick and unless you needed the statpoints for other gameplay not a very expensive investment.
But it never asks of you to think about what you say, to be patient and stubborn or learn about the person you're talking to... which is the very opposite of what persuasion requires in the real world. It promises something quick and easy, when persuasion should be anything but.
As mentioned, it does not even have abstract tactics the way picking the right abilities or stats can have. It's just a "pick this and succeed". Not even stealth, which often is the forgotten stepson of RPG gameplay have that poor level of interaction. If you act spectacularily stupid with stealth in just about any RPG that has it, you will fail. But with social aspects? At worst you skill was not high enough.

But what makes persuasion stats the most damning in my eyes is that they stand in the way of making social interaction interesting. Not a single one of us would accept thatt all that's required to win combat (or stealth) is put stats into a skill and then choose "use skill" at the beginning of the fight.
We have skills, stats, abilities and need to arrange and employ them in a methodical manner to even stand a remote chance of winning in even the simplest systems.
Yet this is precisely what persuasion stats does. Allow you to succeed as long as you meet the prerequiste. No effort. No method. No strategy or tactics. Barely even input.

And as long as persuasion is determined by a stat, this will never really change. Combat is not determined by a stat, it's influenced by several stats, requires different techniques and player input to use them in the right way.
And social (and stealth) should be the same. If it must be ties to a progression system then it should look at abilities, not stats. Unlocking techniques that gets you closer to persuading, rather than allowing you too.

I could easily see a system where every line has a persuasion value (positive or negative) and that it's added up together at a "checkpoint". If you've done good, you pass. If you don't, then it fails. And then Social/Rethorical techniques would allow you to either take a few "shortcuts" or undermine your opponent to defend themselves.

That way, at least there's a semblance of tactics, a deal of roleplaying and the system actually starts to pretend to emulate actual social interaction. With logos, ethos and a whole lot of pathos.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But if the right thing can always be said without a speech skill, why bother with a speech skill?

Because none of the options should succeed automatically.  I'd like to see dice rolls determining outcomes, with relevant stats affecting the odds.  If you pick the best possible option, but you're still terrible at delivering it, it's less likely to work (but it might, still, because you might luck into the right delivery, as well).

I know you hate using meta-gaming as a reason to design anything, but if I can look up a dialogue walk through to give me all the responses to get out of combat in the same way as if I had put all my skill points in a Speech skill, I can then put all points in a combat build, making me an uber-character just with a little research.

And... again... if you can do that, why even have a speech skill?

As you say, I don't like the meta-game justification.  I wouldn't mind if people could just look up a dialogue walkthrough.  I might even favour that.  But we could retain skills without them being an I WIN button simply by not labelling the options and have the skills affect odds, rather than them making the I WIN button appear.

[Fast Jimmy]

Because none of the options should succeed automatically. I'd like to see dice rolls determining outcomes, with relevant stats affecting the odds. If you pick the best possible option, but you're still terrible at delivering it, it's less likely to work (but it might, still, because you might luck into the right delivery, as well).

Ah, so you don't mean that there should be a non-persuasion dialogue option that is an auto-win, but rather that the persuasion option could be picked (with none of them correctly labeled) and a character with no/little amount of Speech skill could still have a (small) chance of being correct.

I can get behind that.

As you say, I don't like the meta-game justification.  I wouldn't mind if people could just look up a dialogue walkthrough.  I might even favour that.  But we could retain skills without them being an I WIN button simply by not labelling the options and have the skills affect odds, rather than them making the I WIN button appear.

But, to go right back to meta-gaming, certain players will sit there and load and reload (or, if given the option, just repeatedly attempt to select the same conversation option) until the dice roll wins for them... until they roll a Natural 20, so to speak.

These players won't see it as manipulating the system, they will see it as the game blocking them from the best outcomes with a silly system that requires them to load and reload. I've seen people complain endlessly about situations like this all the time - "combat is too hard, as if I have one person fall in combat, I "have" to reload," or "the chance to critically fail lock picking is stupid... if I jam a chest lock, I'll "have" to reload an earlier save."

It isn't even an issue where I have a problem with players being able to "game" the system... it is quite the opposite. I know it will mean that people will feel inconvenienced that they "HAVE" to game the system. Like it is a foregone conclusion that meta gaming is their only avenue possible to get past certain obstacles. The mindset of "if the game penalizes me in combat for putting points in lock picking, then I will just meta-game with the Save/Load feature to get past it... what a waste of time!"

If, instead, there is a static outcome, with no way to game the system, but rather some direct cause-and-effect, then the player must, legitimately, make the decision to go down one gameplay path or another.

That being said, showing if you are going to "win" or not (or even if you are using the Persuasion Skill conversation option or not) should not be required. You shouldn't be told "this person is weak to intimidation" outside of what you can observe from their behavior. And you shouldn't know of your Strength is higher than the person you are trying to intimidate (or the equivalent thereof) outside of plot context given in the game.

This way, you wouldn't know what the "I win" button was, nor if your character would even win it if pressed. Even a walk through would need to clarify each situation - this NPC is vulnerable to intimidate if your STR score is X, otherwise you may need to bribe them unless your Speech skill is 5, which means you can smooth-talk him into thinking you are an official (which opens up the "Confusion Amongst the Ranks side quest later) or use the empathy option, which makes the orphan give you more information when he sees you being "nice."

That kind of necessity in examining how to use a Speech skill would make it, in my opinion, much deeper than "pick the Intimidate skill and keep reloading until you succeed."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mai 2013 - 07:29 .