318 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The real problem with having a system that let's the player figure out which of the options is not the persuasion skill dialogue option(s) is the paraphrase system and the dialogue wheel. With either the dialogue icons, the set placement of certain tones/personality choices in the the same spots and/or never being able to see what our character is going to say exactly, it seems practically impossible to not have at least SOME meta-game knowledge of what choice is going to be leveraging the speech skill.  

But there's no reason why the commands should be hidden. It's not like anyone actually argues that the command hotbar should be randomized every 10 seconds, with each ability icon and description being garbled so that it's impossible for you to know in advance not just when you're using an ability, but that you're using some kind of ability. 

Hiding the input from the player is just playing stupid. The reason why combat doesn't have to hide inputs is that there's a lot going on in terms of the gameplay - it's a dynamic interaction because you have lots of possible ways to approach each situation. So you can't "meta-game" a combat encounter more than just being optimally prepared for it.

Dialogue should be the same way. I know exactly what damage my abilities cause, what button trigers them, but none of that means that suddenly I have 'cheated' my way through combat. 

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Sure, but this is another one of those I am not my character moments.  My character might have that intuition, but I personally don't, particularly in video games, where characters don't have unique body language or facial expressions.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate where you're coming from. Though I will say that I find games that try to reflect facial expressions very easy to game because of the fact that everything, esentially, runs off standardized meshes.

They're not for me, but that's because the character's faces just aren't something that I spend a lot of time looking at.  It's like with comics, where I almost never notice the things in the art unless someone points them out to me.  I pay attention to words, but not to images.  Heck, until someone mentioned it on the forums, I never knew the faces in Jade Empire changed depending on what dialogue option you had highlighted.

I guess it's just a matter of the fact that, to me, picking up a combat system is just a matter of putting in some effort (or reading tips on a forum) but I've spent a lifetime trying to learn how to interact with people and I just don't understand them at all.  Also, games have difficulty levels for combat.  They don't have difficulty levels for social interaction (though maybe they could).

Re: difficulty, I was thinking of bringing that up actually. 

In terms of the combat system, I'm not disagreeing with you - I just think it's important to appreciate that stat-based combat is not per se intuitive for everyone, and if the goal is absolute player-character separation, then combat fails to do it entirely.

I know (though it makes no sense to me) that there are people who just can't handle the combat in these games.  But I think it's something that's much easier to learn with a little effort than social interaction.  I've mentioned in the past that I'd be okay with a system that limited what sort of tactics you could give your allies depending on some sort of tactical stat that the player character had (or maybe an option to use the highest in the party, since you could play a character who realizes their tactical shortcomings and listens to others instead) and I think that would be a start towards more separation of character and player.

If you had mulitple conversation checks, potentially with multiple people, reloading would be almost useless unless you were willing to do so multiple times and play through large sections of the game over and over again.  Sure, you'd still get people who would do it and complain that they had to replay through big chunks over and over again to get what they want, but I'm kind of curious if those people really want to play an RPG, or just an interactive storybook.

I think the real end result you'd get is that people would throw the game away in frustration. I hate RNGs because, to me, at that point you don't have an RPG at all but rather just an RNG with pictures. Your decisions have no actual impact on the world - it's all arbitrary math.

Because nothing in the actual output changes - if you persuade the character, you get the [persuade] outcome that always looks the same, but the game has a random trigger for it. So sometimes logic + 50 will work, but other times secude +22 will work, and in both cases the PC will say the same line (logic or seduce) and the NPC will always react the same way. 

All of this creates the impression that there's no actual stable reality in the game, and it's incongruent, because it's not really a possible worlds thing - it's just the game telling you "LOLZ all values changed, now see every single part of the game that was under RNG when you replay!"

I thought I remembered you saying nice things about XCOM:EU.  That game lives on RNG. 

Regardless, the dislike of RNG in an RPG is particularly bizarre to me because I can't recall playing any RPG (PnP or otherwise) that didn't involve some sort of RNG.  Personally, I find systems without RNG boring (there are some tactics games that are like that) because there's always a best/right way to do things, and once you figure it out, the game becomes trivial.  It's like DA, where you had the always win persuade options.  I don't want to always win, even if I make the same choices every time, because it removes any sense of excitement (within reason, of course.  Having damage roulette on in XCOM and doing 1 point of damage point-blank with a shotgun after you run and gunned up to a muton elite sucks.)  It's the same reason I hate hand-placed loot.

Granted, I don't think you should win or lose a game solely based on RNG (there are some old school games where you get 1 chance to spot a secret door or something, and if you fail, you can never finish the game) but I like the opportunity for things to not always turn out for me the same way every time.

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
They're not for me, but that's because the character's faces just aren't something that I spend a lot of time looking at.  It's like with comics, where I almost never notice the things in the art unless someone points them out to me.  I pay attention to words, but not to images.  Heck, until someone mentioned it on the forums, I never knew the faces in Jade Empire changed depending on what dialogue option you had highlighted.

I'm generally an incredibly inattentive person (when it comes to everything around me), but faces are one of the few things I consistently notice. I just don't understand how it could be possible to talk to someone and not focus on their face. What else would you look at?

I know (though it makes no sense to me) that there are people who just can't handle the combat in these games.  But I think it's something that's much easier to learn with a little effort than social interaction.  I've mentioned in the past that I'd be okay with a system that limited what sort of tactics you could give your allies depending on some sort of tactical stat that the player character had (or maybe an option to use the highest in the party, since you could play a character who realizes their tactical shortcomings and listens to others instead) and I think that would be a start towards more separation of character and player.

Putting my neuroscientist cap on, in terms of the ease of learning, it actually depends. Combat is easier to learn if you've learned to learn it, so to speak (e.g. if you have the kind of background in playing with numbers or formal logic generally that makes it intuitive to think in terms of rigid categories and structured, static actions). But social interaction is something that's so innate in what we do, most people just build the kind of knowledge base necessary to have a very strong intuition for it. 

So, in that sense, learning social interaction from scratch is incredibly complex - but generally it's rare for people to have to do that. 

That said, I see where you're coming from with making it more unitary stat-based. But I was using combat to show the opposite issue - that there would be nothing fun about reducing combat to an interactive movie and a single "Combat Win" stat that had to cross a threshold.

I thought I remembered you saying nice things about XCOM:EU.  That game lives on RNG.  

The combat is RNG - but the RNG is very limited and circumscribed, e.g. (i) it is totally upfront (e.g. 50% hit chance); (ii) hidden in the code, meaning I can find out how the mechanic works;  (iii) the consequences flow logically from the probability (i.e., I can predict the outcome); and (iv) the RNG is not entirely random because the hit % and dmg % are influenced by fundamental underlyings thats which I know and can attempt to min/max ahead of time. 

Basically, combat RNG is all about playing with numbers. But if you're talking about using dialogue as a way to avoid meta-gaming, then having me create spreadsheet tables to min-max my dialogue ability based on bounded variables, scour gamefaqs to find the actual game mechanics which you would probably insist on hiding in the name of unpredictabiity is just creating an annoying barrrier to the kind of gameplay that RNG features rely on. 

There's nothing actually random about the random number generator, in the sense that even though the actual outcomes are stochastic I know ahead of time how they are stochastic and can always plan in such a way to control for them.

I can, for example, position my assault trooper in such a way that even if my sniper somehow misses that last Thin Man, I can bat clean-up using run & gun from full cover. 

Regardless, the dislike of RNG in an RPG is particularly bizarre to me because I can't recall playing any RPG (PnP or otherwise) that didn't involve some sort of RNG.  Personally, I find systems without RNG boring (there are some tactics games that are like that) because there's always a best/right way to do things, and once you figure it out, the game becomes trivial.

But an RNG doesn't change that. In Fire Emblem, for example, there are still ideal builds. There's always a best way of doing things. 

It's like DA, where you had the always win persuade options.  I don't want to always win, even if I make the same choices every time, because it removes any sense of excitement (within reason, of course.  Having damage roulette on in XCOM and doing 1 point of damage point-blank with a shotgun after you run and gunned up to a muton elite sucks.)  It's the same reason I hate hand-placed loot.

But the "fun" in XCOM doesn't come from 1-shotting the muton elite - it comes from rolling with the punches as the game dynamically evolves around you. It's about reacting, planning. Tactics, essentially. 

Dialogue is none of these things. I'm making an in-character decision, my character is giving a particular speech (the same speech) to the same character, who has the same background and life experience, and yet somehow I'm expected to believe because of "magic" behind the scenes - maybe because 40 years ago his undear rode into his bottom, suddenly the same argument isn't persuasive? 

The RNG in conmbat doesn't rely on this insane chaos theory kind of logic to justify itself. 

Granted, I don't think you should win or lose a game solely based on RNG (there are some old school games where you get 1 chance to spot a secret door or something, and if you fail, you can never finish the game) but I like the opportunity for things to not always turn out for me the same way every time.

There are certain things that do not make sense as being randomized. For example, XCOM doesn't randomly transform your units into other clases of units, or randomly switch genders at unpredictable intervals, or has your weapon transform into a chicken. 

I think RNG dialogue is much more like having a gun turn into a chicken than it is missing a shot because your footing was poor. 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 mai 2013 - 06:09 .

[Allan Schumacher]

They're not for me, but that's because the character's faces just aren't something that I spend a lot of time looking at. It's like with comics, where I almost never notice the things in the art unless someone points them out to me. I pay attention to words, but not to images. Heck, until someone mentioned it on the forums, I never knew the faces in Jade Empire changed depending on what dialogue option you had highlighted.

What would happen if you turned off subtitles?

While interacting with a person in real life, there are no visual words to take my focus away from the speaker, so I am focusing more on the body language of the speaker as they speak (on top of things like intonation and so forth).

In games like Mass Effect, I actively do not play with subtitles on to allow me greater freedom to see what is going on. If I have subtitles, I tend to focus on the subtitles.

[SerTabris]

In Exile wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
They're not for me, but that's because the character's faces just aren't something that I spend a lot of time looking at.  It's like with comics, where I almost never notice the things in the art unless someone points them out to me.  I pay attention to words, but not to images.  Heck, until someone mentioned it on the forums, I never knew the faces in Jade Empire changed depending on what dialogue option you had highlighted.

I'm generally an incredibly inattentive person (when it comes to everything around me), but faces are one of the few things I consistently notice. I just don't understand how it could be possible to talk to someone and not focus on their face. What else would you look at?

I know (though it makes no sense to me) that there are people who just can't handle the combat in these games.  But I think it's something that's much easier to learn with a little effort than social interaction.  I've mentioned in the past that I'd be okay with a system that limited what sort of tactics you could give your allies depending on some sort of tactical stat that the player character had (or maybe an option to use the highest in the party, since you could play a character who realizes their tactical shortcomings and listens to others instead) and I think that would be a start towards more separation of character and player.

Putting my neuroscientist cap on, in terms of the ease of learning, it actually depends. Combat is easier to learn if you've learned to learn it, so to speak (e.g. if you have the kind of background in playing with numbers or formal logic generally that makes it intuitive to think in terms of rigid categories and structured, static actions). But social interaction is something that's so innate in what we do, most people just build the kind of knowledge base necessary to have a very strong intuition for it. 

So, in that sense, learning social interaction from scratch is incredibly complex - but generally it's rare for people to have to do that.

Come to think of it, this could be an accessibility issue for some groups of people (such as people on the autism spectrum).  Perhaps I don't understand how a neurotypical person acts, or what facial expressions they might have, but should that be inevitable reflected in all of my characters?

[Allan Schumacher]

The idea is that the numbers become locked or static. The programming simply remembers which areas have been visited and saves the numbers that were generated at that time. The contents of any chest would also be remembered so re-entering the area will not change anything, unless the gamer has leveled up the character in that particular skill to overcome the difficulty that was encountered.

This isn't very difficult to do (it's actually trivially easy to add a RNG seed).

Now, you *could* assign the unique seed to each entity that uses it (sharing the same seed would result in allowing players to do things out of order to get slightly different results), although that still works as some sort of a level of predeterminism.

Imagine we have critical fails in the game (I'm not a huge fan of critical fails...). This means that whatever locked placeable has received that critical fail can now never be opened in that particular game. Even if you jack your lockpicking up to over 9000.

It's an idea that could work, but it's still a system that is going to be open to exploitation and is going to cause aggravation in some eyes.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They're not for me, but that's because the character's faces just aren't something that I spend a lot of time looking at. It's like with comics, where I almost never notice the things in the art unless someone points them out to me. I pay attention to words, but not to images. Heck, until someone mentioned it on the forums, I never knew the faces in Jade Empire changed depending on what dialogue option you had highlighted.

What would happen if you turned off subtitles?

While interacting with a person in real life, there are no visual words to take my focus away from the speaker, so I am focusing more on the body language of the speaker as they speak (on top of things like intonation and so forth).

In games like Mass Effect, I actively do not play with subtitles on to allow me greater freedom to see what is going on. If I have subtitles, I tend to focus on the subtitles.

I tend to have subtitles on. English is not my native language. It's not that bad, but I like to have a peek at it whenever I miss something. It helps me learn the language.

Other than that I am more focusing on the visuals than reading text. However, what being said is equally important, because both the visuals and dialogue are intertwined. And in a good game even the sound and music can play a role.

[Sir JK]

SerTabris wrote...

Come to think of it, this could be an accessibility issue for some groups of people (such as people on the autism spectrum).  Perhaps I don't understand how a neurotypical person acts, or what facial expressions they might have, but should that be inevitable reflected in all of my characters?

This would actually imply that the game mechanics would (almost) perfectly mimic actual social  interaction. Consider that we're still at "singe stat determine success or failure" I think that might be a bit overreaching. It's far more likely that any interactive social system would be more akin to a logic puzzle. As long as the game teaches you which signs to look for, what takes you further along and what sets you back I imagine most people who pay attention would learn it relatively quickly.

But a tutorial and a few test runs would be abolutely crucial. Definantely.

[Allan Schumacher]

Come to think of it, this could be an accessibility issue for some groups of people (such as people on the autism spectrum). Perhaps I don't understand how a neurotypical person acts, or what facial expressions they might have, but should that be inevitable reflected in all of my characters?

Unless we abstract out dialogue so it's no longer even about spoken lines, but more along just picking specific instructions (i.e. "Ask about Quest" as an option), I don't think you can really do much to mitigate this. It'd require very fundamentally different perspectives on how to create those interactions.


I mean, as much as people may like to say it's the character's stats that make a difference, not the player abilities, from a cognitive perspective there's always going to be issues. In some cases you can make it work, such as high intellect providing the explicitly correct answer in a dialogue option. Torment did this, and it worked well. Though if a person is functionally at a much lesser intellect than their character, they are still going to trip up because they may not fully understand the "intelligent" response. How do we reconcile that? Do we also add a [Super Smart Response] beside it?

That can still work (Fallout New Vegas did it a lot), but if there's ever a gameplay element that involves figuring out a puzzle, a player is going to need to place their own inherent restrictions on whether or not to exploit their own intellect (assuming the puzzle isn't crit path). When I was younger I was a power gamer so my BG2 Paladin had 3 intellect. I was still able to figure out logic puzzles without issue.

You start to get VERY divergent game content creation when you start to let yourself chase down these rabbit holes. It works if you end up compromising depth of content for breadth of content (i.e. multiple paths that end up with shorter overall playthroughs), but it can be difficult and challenging to justify.


I mean, I think the best way to ensure that it was purely character stats that drove these things, and not player response, would be to make the game automatically make a lot of those choices based on the sum of the character's stats and experiences at any given time. I don't think that that would be very well received, however.

[n7stormrunner]

I liked things the way they have been ether just go back to da: o or leave them like da 2

[AngryFrozenWater]

For some reason BW will not get rid of the dialogue wheel. I don't like the paraphrases and I don't like the rationalizations to defend the system. The interrupt is a nice gimmick, though. Persuasion can be fun, but it requires stats and BW feels that stats are uncool so they move away from that and thus persuasion is abandoned.

One drawback of the current system is that there is no connection between the cinematics and the gameplay. For an example there's no smooth transition between them. In Legacy there is a point where you can see a cinematic in which foes are supposed to hunt you down, but they only appear in the cinematic. Once it is over they are never to be found at the locations you just saw. BW really needs to improve that.

I think that they are more focused on telling/showing the story in cinematics, rather telling/showing it in the game. It is as if the game and the cinematics are totally different entities and that the cinematics are tacked onto the game.

[Fredvdp]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In games like Mass Effect, I actively do not play with subtitles on to allow me greater freedom to see what is going on. If I have subtitles, I tend to focus on the subtitles.

In Mass Effect 2, after loading the Normandy for a dialog scene, the convetrsation starts before the audio fades in, which is why I needed subtitles. In ME3, sentences can be cut abruptly, so I need subtitles there as well.

[Direwolf0294]

I don't want to see it done like DA:O, where you dump points into an ability so you can "win" a dice roll against an NPC. That's boring game design, imo.

I also don't want to see things done like ME or DA2, where dumping points into the persuasion ability happens without the players input (as it's based on stuff like alignment) and so long as you have the right amount of points you can just pick that option and win, unless BioWare's decided to change things around with that one option and the NPC isn't persuaded by you, and there's actually no way at all to persuade them, no matter how paragon or renegade you are.

What I'd like to see is a persuasion system that takes place over more than one dialogue pick and I actually have to think about what I choose, with different characters being persuaded by different things. Basically something similar to Human Revolutions.

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
It's actually trivially easy to add a RNG seed.

Do not trivialize the seed of Nuffle, lest the wrath of the Random Number God falls upon you and all your blocks show up double skulls!

Praise Nuffle!

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 mai 2013 - 08:28 .

[ianvillan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

When I was younger I was a power gamer so my BG2 Paladin had 3 intellect. I was still able to figure out logic puzzles without issue.

.

I have to disagree with you here I don't believe a power gamer would of picked Paladin in BG2.

[Fast Jimmy]

(Yes, I've been playing Wizardry 8 recently )

Ah... Wizardry. Now THAT was an insane series. Looking at the Wizardry 8 Wikipedia article is making me nostalgic... and, actually, sounds like what the ending(s) of ME3 should have actually looked like, instead of the vague, unclear mess that we saw.

It is the irony of ironies that all too often people will complain about how cumbersome a system is simply because its cheats (of sorts) are so difficult, when removing the cheats in the first place can create a more interesting game experience.

In Exile wrote...
Well, no. RNG gameplay is great for people that like random occurences out of their control, but the whole reason the issue exists in the first place is that not everyone agrees that the end result is a more interesting experience, instead of an incredibly unsatisfying one.

You must have missed the context. I was arguing against RNG in my response, saying that it leads to metagaming. Having set, static values where your skills will work or won't, not determined by the roll of a digital dice, is what I had suggested earlier and was countering.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The real problem with having a system that let's the player figure out which of the options is not the persuasion skill dialogue option(s) is the paraphrase system and the dialogue wheel. With either the dialogue icons, the set placement of certain tones/personality choices in the the same spots and/or never being able to see what our character is going to say exactly, it seems practically impossible to not have at least SOME meta-game knowledge of what choice is going to be leveraging the speech skill.

In Exile wrote...
But there's no reason why the commands should be hidden. It's not like anyone actually argues that the command hotbar should be randomized every 10 seconds, with each ability icon and description being garbled so that it's impossible for you to know in advance not just when you're using an ability, but that you're using some kind of ability.

Again, I think you aren't reading the context I am talking about. In my suggestion, I said that there should be an entire Persuasion tree that could not even be accessed/offered to players without any Persuasion skills. In this, it would almost be impossible to not have some way of flagging the Persuasion options in some fashion.

My response was to say to those who said the options should be hidden that it is pretty much impossible to accomplish with the paraphrase/dialogue wheel setup currently seen in the DA series (and confirmed to return for DA3).

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
...I said that there should be an entire Persuasion tree that could not even be accessed/offered to players without any Persuasion skills. In this, it would almost be impossible to not have some way of flagging the Persuasion options in some fashion. ...

Sorry if I take this out of it's context. But wouldn't a separate persuasion tree still has the same core problem? "Pick persuasion option to get to social success". It's no longer a guaranteed success, but it's clearly also marked as the road to it. You don't really need to figure out how to handle your opponent as much as which your strength is. It's certainly better than the single choice - success, but the emphasis still lie on the investment side rather than the usage side.

Would not a better approach be that persuade options (no matter their form) helps you along?... shortcuts if you will. And that by investing more into persuade skills you unlock more of these. But you could, by choosing your words carefully and appealing to the people you talk to, still succeed at convincing them (perhaps not all of them though) and that even if you do use them; having made an extremely bad first impression or worked against them at some point could very well ruin your chances.

That way investment would be about improving your chances, not allowing them. Much like investing into combat skills and abilities improves your chances, but does not guarantee you'll win every combat.

Modifié par Sir JK, 11 mai 2013 - 01:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Come to think of it, this could be an accessibility issue for some groups of people (such as people on the autism spectrum). Perhaps I don't understand how a neurotypical person acts, or what facial expressions they might have, but should that be inevitable reflected in all of my characters?

Unless we abstract out dialogue so it's no longer even about spoken lines, but more along just picking specific instructions (i.e. "Ask about Quest" as an option), I don't think you can really do much to mitigate this. It'd require very fundamentally different perspectives on how to create those interactions.


I mean, as much as people may like to say it's the character's stats that make a difference, not the player abilities, from a cognitive perspective there's always going to be issues. In some cases you can make it work, such as high intellect providing the explicitly correct answer in a dialogue option. Torment did this, and it worked well. Though if a person is functionally at a much lesser intellect than their character, they are still going to trip up because they may not fully understand the "intelligent" response. How do we reconcile that? Do we also add a [Super Smart Response] beside it?

That can still work (Fallout New Vegas did it a lot), but if there's ever a gameplay element that involves figuring out a puzzle, a player is going to need to place their own inherent restrictions on whether or not to exploit their own intellect (assuming the puzzle isn't crit path). When I was younger I was a power gamer so my BG2 Paladin had 3 intellect. I was still able to figure out logic puzzles without issue.

You start to get VERY divergent game content creation when you start to let yourself chase down these rabbit holes. It works if you end up compromising depth of content for breadth of content (i.e. multiple paths that end up with shorter overall playthroughs), but it can be difficult and challenging to justify.


I mean, I think the best way to ensure that it was purely character stats that drove these things, and not player response, would be to make the game automatically make a lot of those choices based on the sum of the character's stats and experiences at any given time. I don't think that that would be very well received, however.

Perhaps with a truly low-intelligence character, things like quest markers and helpful journal entires go away? A not-smart character would likely not make detailed notes about what they needed to do next, what instructions they were given or what their clues-so-far would point them towards?

And, in the case of puzzles of logic, perhaps a "smart" character could have more hints, such as highlighted objects or hints that our PC mulls about outloud through ambient dialogue. This could help a non-logical player play a logical character. But that wouldn't ever prevent a logical player to easily handle a logic puzzle with a non-intelligent character... unless you made the puzzle somehow harder (perhaps required more explicity steps that a smarter character would do automatically)...?

I agree, you could hop down this rabbit hole for quite some time. And I think it would be an interesting way to hanlde a game, personally, but unless there are tons of puzzles or mysteries your character would be solving on a regular basis, I'm not sure this level of detail to the player's Intelligence score would really be a viable option.


Back to being a little more on topic, I tihink that my earlier suggestion of having multiple ways to Persuade would be a really interesting way to handle it. You would have a Persuasion approach tied to each stat (Intimidate - Strength, Logic - Intelligence, Smooth Talking - Cunning, Empathy - Charisma, Bluff - Wisdom, etc., etc.) that would be diminished or enhanced based on your character's own stats, as well as the personality/build of the NPC you are trying to persuade. As your Speech skill gets higher, you can even use Persuasion approaches that aren't typically in your wheelhouse (Intimidate for a weak, low-Strength character), widening your RP opportunities.

This would make the Persuasion option not an auto-win, as even knowing which option the NPC may be most susceptible to would not be a guarantee of winning. If you are a low-Strength character, using Intimidate is not going to be your best course of action, even against an NPC who is susceptible to it. Similarly, if you have a very high Strength, you may be able to Intimidate an NPC who is resistant to Intimidate more easily than you could use Logic or Empathy on them.

Such a system could offer the ability to play lots of different characters and would still not be an Auto-win button for the player to use, but rather a skill set that the player would need to know how to navigate through, just like combat.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
...I said that there should be an entire Persuasion tree that could not even be accessed/offered to players without any Persuasion skills. In this, it would almost be impossible to not have some way of flagging the Persuasion options in some fashion. ...

Sorry if I take this out of it's context. But wouldn't a separate persuasion tree still has the same core problem? "Pick persuasion option to get to social success". It's no longer a guaranteed success, but it's clearly also marked as the road to it. You don't really need to figure out how to handle your opponent as much as which your strength is. It's certainly better than the single choice - success, but the emphasis still lie on the investment side rather than the usage side.

Would not a better approach be that persuade options (no matter their form) helps you along?... shortcuts if you will. And that by investing more into persuade skills you unlock more of these. But you could, by choosing your words carefully and appealing to the people you talk to, still succeed at convincing them (perhaps not all of them though) and that even if you do use them; having made an extremely bad first impression or worked against them at some point could very well ruin your chances.

That way investment would be about improving your chances, not allowing them. Much like investing into combat skills and abilities improves your chances, but does not guarantee you'll win every combat.

I thought about this (but hadn't posted my response yet) and had the following idea...

People who are smooth talkers generally don't ruffle feathers. They often don't take a stance on any issues when trying to talk someone into doing something for them, particularly a stranger.

What if by choosing Persuade options, you likely would avoid getting a reaction from your companions? If bargaining with a blood mage to release a child gets the "auto-win button," you may not get any approval or Rivalry from Merril, Anders or Fenris. In a sense, using the "Auto-Win" button would mute your progression with your companions. Since, after all, you are taking the paths of least resitance, which is neither impressive nor grating to your companions.

Does that sound like a suitable alternative mechanic?

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
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."

There's
a big difference between the actual gameplay, which involves its own
challenges quite separate from literally clicking one option, and
actually clicking one option. 

It's impossible to even answer your post because of how disingenuous you're being. 

'Not candid or sincere'

Okay, so keep on believing that I'm hiding something, or am saying things I actually don't believe.  I'll answer you at face value, anyway, and be more debating you for OTHERS to see then.  Since, you know, you believe I am playing dumb, lying, or some other shennanigans that don't involve honest, straightforward discussions.

"Actual gameplay" meaning what?  I do not understand this "I-WIN" button discussion.  Does picking one option really involve more than hitting one button to fire a blast that kills a moving target in Space Invaders?  Timing is involved, I suppose... so how about a turn-based game where you click the "attack" button and see your fighter swing and kill a monster one blow... isn't that a "I win the fight" button?  Character skill is involved in being about to land that blow for enough damage, you might say, but so is a Charisma/Persuasion skill needed to be able to click the "let's be friends" and thus avoid a fight option.

I don't see the difference.  I really don't  "Click attack, win fight," vs. "click diplomatic response, win conversation."  If you overall point is that you shouldn't be able to do it in ONE BUTTON PRESS, combat win or dialog win, I'd say "depends the game and it's focus" but, generally, agree with you--depending on the context.

Are you against the interrupts in the Mass Effect series as well?  Are you entirely against TellTales Walking Dead series?  How about trivia games?  There are endless game examples where you are presented a challenge, and have to pick the right option.  Is the problem that you don't want a trivia game inside of a role-playing game, where if your character has a high enough Intelligence attribute or Trivia Knowledge skill rank that the correct answer on the trivia board lights up for you? 

If that is your problem, I disagree.  I love using character skill and character knowledge over mine.  Like in D&D (or Pathfinder, if you prefer... or Serenity, a Cortex system game) where you ask the GM about a certain creature or organization, and the GM has you make a knowledge check... and if you succeed he tells you what your character knows.  Because if you character is a resident of said fantasy world, especially if he is an expert on said topic in question, your characer knowing something shouldn't revolve around you, the player, personally having memorized minutia and errata of a fantasy world.

Same with persuading someone.  In a role-playing game I want to play a character I create, not play me.  If my character is super-smart or super-charismatic, I want the game to represent that and if there is a chance to pick the right choice in a logic puzzle or say the right thing to an interlocutor, I actually prefer the game to use my character's ability and SHOW ME what MY CHARACTER believes to be the right thing to pick / say.

Which would boil down to "high charisma, click the highlighted discusson option, succeed in the conversation", or, as is being described here to the best of my understanding of the conversation, the "I WIN" button.

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
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!

You're responding to me, correct?

My arguement wasn't to prevent people from playing a certain way, but I feel that dialog battles pulls the game away from roleplaying. It feels more like I'm trying to win every conversation, as opposed to define my character in conversation, and then in pivotal moments--at the convention, at the top of the tower with Darrow, etc--manipulate THEN.

But what about players, like me, who have a ridiculously larger amount of fun with the conversation system than any leveling, stealthing, or combat?  The conversation systems in AP, again sticking with the ultimate example of this (IMO), don't have a "right choice" to win.  For the russian informant - do you be the tough guy with him, slam his head against the bar, or do you play it coy and give little away, or are you straight with the guy and treat him like a human being?  Each will get you different results, and the only measure of which is "better" is depending on the character you want to play and what you were looking to get out of the conversation.  There's no "with this guy you HAVE to be a jerk to get the optimal result, and with this girl you HAVE to be super complimentary, to get what you want.

Do you go after Surkov or Brayko?  Do you work with Albatross or SIE?  Do you fall in love with Mina or do you blame her for everything that has happened to you?  There's no right answer in AP, just YOUR answer.

If I'm missing your point, you'll have to elaborate.  How are dialog choices (battles, if you will) pulling away from role-playing?  I'd argue the most pure role-playing you get in the game is in a dialog system like Alpha Protocol's.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I thought about this (but hadn't posted my response yet) and had the following idea...

People who are smooth talkers generally don't ruffle feathers. They often don't take a stance on any issues when trying to talk someone into doing something for them, particularly a stranger.

What if by choosing Persuade options, you likely would avoid getting a reaction from your companions? If bargaining with a blood mage to release a child gets the "auto-win button," you may not get any approval or Rivalry from Merril, Anders or Fenris. In a sense, using the "Auto-Win" button would mute your progression with your companions. Since, after all, you are taking the paths of least resitance, which is neither impressive nor grating to your companions.

Does that sound like a suitable alternative mechanic?

So you're trading respect from your companions for ensuring a non-violent result? Sure, it's a trade off and certainly is useable to avoid a fight. But I don't see it being very applicable if you seek to convince someone of something (but very much so when avoiding a fight or making introductions).

I feel it also sort of disincentivizes you to try (since you're not being rewarded for pursuing the diplomatic course of action, unlike the alternatives which would earn you/lose respect) and implies that ensuring the peaceful outcome is a less worthwhile endeavour (despite that avoiding a fight sometimes would demand far more skill than getting into it).

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I thought about this (but hadn't posted my response yet) and had the following idea...

People who are smooth talkers generally don't ruffle feathers. They often don't take a stance on any issues when trying to talk someone into doing something for them, particularly a stranger.

What if by choosing Persuade options, you likely would avoid getting a reaction from your companions? If bargaining with a blood mage to release a child gets the "auto-win button," you may not get any approval or Rivalry from Merril, Anders or Fenris. In a sense, using the "Auto-Win" button would mute your progression with your companions. Since, after all, you are taking the paths of least resitance, which is neither impressive nor grating to your companions.

Does that sound like a suitable alternative mechanic?

So you're trading respect from your companions for ensuring a non-violent result? Sure, it's a trade off and certainly is useable to avoid a fight. But I don't see it being very applicable if you seek to convince someone of something (but very much so when avoiding a fight or making introductions).

I feel it also sort of disincentivizes you to try (since you're not being rewarded for pursuing the diplomatic course of action, unlike the alternatives which would earn you/lose respect) and implies that ensuring the peaceful outcome is a less worthwhile endeavour (despite that avoiding a fight sometimes would demand far more skill than getting into it).

True, it would be weighted against using the Speech skill every time... but isn't that what you were saying you didn't want? I was just suggesting the lack of companion approval idea as a way to mitigate that.

Also, your suggestion originally about picking the right words and such doesn't really work for the DA series post-dialogue wheel, since we CAN'T pick our words. A context-sensitive dialogue system is nearly impossible when all we see are paraphrases... so the Persuasion options would nearly have to be labeled or flagged as such, in my opinion. 

But, in my system, you wouldn't know which option would work best for certain people, nor would the same approach work for a character you are playing with high Intelligence as one with high Strength. I really think that level of nuance could successfully prevent a "I Win" button from occuring, while also giving the player some sembelance of the fact that they are USING their Speech skills. After all, if you can't tell you are opening new conversation venues until you do a direct comparison with a second playthrough, the game runs the risk of doing "card tricks in the dark," as David Gaider characterized some of the interactions in DA2.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

True, it would be weighted against using the Speech skill every time... but isn't that what you were saying you didn't want? I was just suggesting the lack of companion approval idea as a way to mitigate that.

Also, your suggestion originally about picking the right words and such doesn't really work for the DA series post-dialogue wheel, since we CAN'T pick our words. A context-sensitive dialogue system is nearly impossible when all we see are paraphrases... so the Persuasion options would nearly have to be labeled or flagged as such, in my opinion. 

But, in my system, you wouldn't know which option would work best for certain people, nor would the same approach work for a character you are playing with high Intelligence as one with high Strength. I really think that level of nuance could successfully prevent a "I Win" button from occuring, while also giving the player some sembelance of the fact that they are USING their Speech skills. After all, if you can't tell you are opening new conversation venues until you do a direct comparison with a second playthrough, the game runs the risk of doing "card tricks in the dark," as David Gaider characterized some of the interactions in DA2.

I'm not so much desiring to disincentivize social approaches as much as I wish to see the system encourage making an effort to think about what the other side expects of you, desires and/or how they want to deal with someone. Like not joking with a "no-nonsense" type of person. It won't help you. Or not guilttripping templars and nobles that you need the help of.
Just about every advice in the world encourages making an effort at getting a good first impression, and this would be a part of that.
Differentiating persuasion and non-persuasion means that there are dialogue that's "safe" and dialogue that isn't. But also that even if you do make the effort, you couldn't pull it off if your skill isn't high enough. And that's fine... to a degree. Some people will be extremely difficult to talk to. That your suggestion means that I have to think about what kind of persuasion I should apply goes a way to meet my desires and I like it.
But like Sylvius says, if I do everything right, have the right motivation and have previously done things that impresses my target.  Should I not be able to convince him regardless of my level of rethorical training?

I do see your point though. Marking words is a bit too extreme. But general broad strokes such as making the effort at a good first impression, acting in their interests, not insulting them and making use of moral authority should be doable with the wheel and paraphrases, should they not?

To be clear, I like the nuance of your suggestion. It requires you to think and allows you to utilise your strength and weakness to succeed. It requires an investment. All good things. The only thing I really object to is that choosing persuasion-options would be required, rather than strongly suggested. Much like using abilities and spells is not required in combat... just strongly suggested.
Of course, in particularily difficult cases... they should absolutely be required. But only because the situation is weighted against you. Not because they magically enable it to happen... unless it's blood magic of course, then it's totally acceptable that it magically enables it

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Would this provide backwards value setting?

In that if you save your game, enter a new location; find "hard" values, reload your game from before entering that area, and find the same "hard" values? Or would the RNG be reset if the Save Game was before that area was entered?

If you load a save before the values are set then the values would be recalculated. The gamer then runs the risk of getting harder values in that area. One way to set a beginning point for each area is to have a seed value that set the basic values for that area and then have the RNG generate values off the seed value. That way the random numbers generated will always be higher than the seed value. Those are then set in stone for that area.

[In Exile]

SerTabris wrote...
Come to think of it, this could be an accessibility issue for some groups of people (such as people on the autism spectrum).  Perhaps I don't understand how a neurotypical person acts, or what facial expressions they might have, but should that be inevitable reflected in all of my characters?

Personally, I would address any of these concerns by doing a variant of DX:HR - as you add ranks in persuade (and I would argue the equivalent of an INT stat), you get UI information regarding the state of mind, likes, interests, etc. of the character you are interacting with. Also, the Alpha Protocol approach requiring you to explore to gather information on characters - building their dossier, so to speak - would also be useful.

So in this way you have quite a lot of information. And otherwise, if issues persist, at some point you have to grant that the very nature of the gameplay style is just not equally accessible to all. RPGs aren't really accessible to people who find it difficult to learn structured, numbered-based and logic gated systems (not to be prejudicial, but I'd wager ADHD would be overrepresented in groups of people that don't find stated-based combat engaging).