Dialogues, should they be tied to your stats?

In most pen and paper rpgs, your brave band of adventurers generally have a party "face", the group spokesperson, generally the one with the highest charisma or personality or whatever it is called attribute. Attribute selection then plays with skill and class selection, diplomacy and so on. In dnd the classes with the most reason to have a high charisma are bards, paladins and clerics.

 

You know this, so im coming with the point.

 

In a computer game, especially ones like planescape or baldurs gate, the world interacts with YOU, and the party spokesperson is always YOU, regardless of what class/style you play. The best example of this is planescape. Planescape has an amazing story, but in order to get the most out of it you have to devote most of your mechanical growth as you level to your mental stats, leaving you unfit for anything but wizard unless you are prepared to suck. I like to play martial characters, however, and in most computer rpgs playing as what is mainly a fighter leaves you unfit for talking duty, something i find abhorrent. History is, after all, filled to the brim with people good at both talking and fighting, and I'd like for the protagonist of project eternity to be good at dialogue regardless of class choice, like in alpha protocol. Also, locking out content in the form of quests because you dont have a high enough int score is a design choice i cant sympathize with.

 

Rambling over. I've made this a poll because i understand the other argument, that having classes good at talking opens up more replay value, and that people like playing with "dumb" dialogue for laughs. I've also tried to incorporate as many different options as i could think of, but I've might have missed some.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Telefax

In most pen and paper rpgs, your brave band of adventurers generally have a party "face", the group spokesperson, generally the one with the highest charisma or personality or whatever it is called attribute. Attribute selection then plays with skill and class selection, diplomacy and so on. In dnd the classes with the most reason to have a high charisma are bards, paladins and clerics.

 

You know this, so im coming with the point.

 

In a computer game, especially ones like planescape or baldurs gate, the world interacts with YOU, and the party spokesperson is always YOU, regardless of what class/style you play. The best example of this is planescape. Planescape has an amazing story, but in order to get the most out of it you have to devote most of your mechanical growth as you level to your mental stats, leaving you unfit for anything but wizard unless you are prepared to suck. I like to play martial characters, however, and in most computer rpgs playing as what is mainly a fighter leaves you unfit for talking duty, something i find abhorrent. History is, after all, filled to the brim with people good at both talking and fighting, and I'd like for the protagonist of project eternity to be good at dialogue regardless of class choice, like in alpha protocol. Also, locking out content in the form of quests because you dont have a high enough int score is a design choice i cant sympathize with.

 

Rambling over. I've made this a poll because i understand the other argument, that having classes good at talking opens up more replay value, and that people like playing with "dumb" dialogue for laughs. I've also tried to incorporate as many different options as i could think of, but I've might have missed some.

 

Yes. Higher Charisma or special skills should give you extra dialogue options.

The only thing I don't like is having to choose between a powerful fighter who's an idiot, or a genius who can't fight worth squat.

And that explains my sentiment in one sentence. Nice one.

Definitely man, in the old rpg's you had to make a guy in your group having the social skills, high charisma and diplomacy skill in D&D for example

The only thing I don't like is having to choose between a powerful fighter who's an idiot, or a genius who can't fight worth squat.

 

But that is the point. A pure fighter should not act as he is the most intelligent and handsome guy on this world. But to actually address this issue. You could make it that you could ask your other party members to handle this situation.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Darji

I liked PST's system where all of your stats including physical ones could be used in combat (ie. catching an npc who pickpockets you during conversation using dex).

Edited September 17, 2012 by zrani

I like having discussion tied to stats but learning and saying the right things like Deus Ex and Alpha Protocol is a big part of conversation paths as well. As this game won't be based on DnD it may not have the planescape talkers are wizards problem. In Fallout's SPECIAL system diplomacy takes points away from combat styles equally.

And if the pure fighter was someone like Charlemagne or Alexander, great leaders and warriors. we are talking about a game protagonist, not an average dnd party member.

(Well, provided this game does have a clear protagonist, it could be like ID or SoZ, but somehow i doubt it)

I don't like this poll because there is no "all of the above". Dialogue options should be influenced by stats, skills, faction affiliation, and aquired lore.

I'd like a combination of both stat-affected conversation options (i.e. dude with persuade skill has more dialogue options, or has a better chance of succeeding at persuasion) and actually trying to work your way through dialogue by saying the right things, as one of the above poll choices suggested.

Because sometimes in games a "persuade ability" turns into some kind of cure-all.

Conversations checks should be based on the characters being spoken to and your words and actions leading up to the conversation. If an NPC is naturally wary, anything that you say that could be construed as a lie or hiding something will make him less inclined to help you. If you help and NPC, he'll be more inclined to help you. If you've done nothing but kill people in the town, the good NPCs will not want to talk to you, but the more shady types will perk up. There should be no charisma or persuasion stat. It should all happen organically.

Edited September 17, 2012 by RogueBurger

I favor tying it to skill. I also favor making it a game of its own. A good conversation should be like a boss encounter, with tactical consideration in accordance with spec.

I'd like our skills and attributes to give us more options (or less), but it's our choice of these options that decide the success or failure of the conversation. The slimy Archvizier may want to hear flattery and a glib tongue, so we choose the options opened up by our high charisma or intellect. General Bloodbourne wants no flannel, just straight answers in simple words. Weigh up and decide on approaches through observation of the individual, and perhaps previous information gathering, no "I win" buttons.

I think it should be at least partially skill based, but choices you've made through the game, and NPCs predispositions should be more important than what your base stats are.

 

You could be the most charismatic person in the world, but if you've just assassinated the beloved king, you're going to have a hard time convincing the people to not try and kill you.

 

Likewise, you could be totally useless at talking to people, but if you've just saved someone's family, they're probably going to be partial to what you're trying to get them to do.

 

If you've built up a reputation during the game of being a murderous fiend, getting people to trust you will be very difficult. Likewise, if you've built up a reputation for being a kind, merciful, generous person, intimidating someone is going to be quite tough.

Purely skill based (seems expensive enough), though the 'Difficulty Check' could always change due to previous choices.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Delterius

Here's a couple of ideas to make dialogue interesting and maybe even somewhat challenging:

 

1) There is room for a "persuade" or "speech"-type skill, but it's not absolutely essential. Investing in it would mean making a commitment to diplomacy by being less powerful in other areas, and some will argue that it's a bad thing or it doesn't make sense. But there could still be room for it.

 

2) Even then, other stats/skills/acquired knowledge should play an equally - if not even more - important role in dialogue options offered.

 

3) Give minimal information as to whether a dialogue option is there because of a skill/attribute or not. If we are to be told, then we shouldn't know whether or not it will succeed. Optionally: we get to judge that based on the actual quote i.e. whether it is a poorly worded request or an eloquent speech.

If this is the spiritual successor to Torment, then yes, stats should modify dialog options (wisdom, perception, intelligence, dexterity, charisma, strength... they all should contribute), and pertinent skill-checks should determine the chances of success.

 

EDIT: and yes! please do NOT tell which stat/skill is modifying things... (ala newer Fallouts).

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tychoxi

In most pen and paper rpgs, your brave band of adventurers generally have a party "face", the group spokesperson, generally the one with the highest charisma or personality or whatever it is called attribute. Attribute selection then plays with skill and class selection, diplomacy and so on. In dnd the classes with the most reason to have a high charisma are bards, paladins and clerics.

 

You know this, so im coming with the point.

 

In a computer game, especially ones like planescape or baldurs gate, the world interacts with YOU, and the party spokesperson is always YOU, regardless of what class/style you play. The best example of this is planescape. Planescape has an amazing story, but in order to get the most out of it you have to devote most of your mechanical growth as you level to your mental stats, leaving you unfit for anything but wizard unless you are prepared to suck. I like to play martial characters, however, and in most computer rpgs playing as what is mainly a fighter leaves you unfit for talking duty, something i find abhorrent. History is, after all, filled to the brim with people good at both talking and fighting, and I'd like for the protagonist of project eternity to be good at dialogue regardless of class choice, like in alpha protocol. Also, locking out content in the form of quests because you dont have a high enough int score is a design choice i cant sympathize with.

 

Rambling over. I've made this a poll because i understand the other argument, that having classes good at talking opens up more replay value, and that people like playing with "dumb" dialogue for laughs. I've also tried to incorporate as many different options as i could think of, but I've might have missed some.

 

Yes. Higher Charisma or special skills should give you extra dialogue options.

 

This is as it should be.

If this is the spiritual successor to Torment, then yes, stats should modify dialog options (wisdom, perception, intelligence, dexterity, charisma, strength... they all should contribute), and skill-checks should determine the rate of success.

 

This too

Why do people want to limit dialog options so much? It seems so counter-intuitive to me.

I think a combination of the first two would be perfect.

Why do people want to limit dialog options so much? It seems so counter-intuitive to me.

 

Tying dialogue options to attributes only limit dialogue options if your purposedly made a character that has low points in everything.

Why do people want to limit dialog options so much? It seems so counter-intuitive to me.

 

R-P-G, sound it out.

PST did it real well, you had a lot of options pop up based on your stats/knowledge. I would like to see that again, also Vampire the masquerade bloodlines did it well also, you would get new options that were in a new colored font that allowed you to know it was a special option. For example, you would be talking to someone, and then a pink text apeared to let you know there was a seduction option, a blue text opion apeared to know you can persuade, green I think meant threatened, red meant you could use a power to drive someone insane. I love these added bonuses, not just knowlege, but using skills/abilities like using magic option in a conversation piece. Sort of like when you used the force to persuade someone in the jedi games. I also like the option to punch people, or try to pickpocket, or throw a fireball, or seduce, persaude..etc. Based on your stats, it should give you an idea of the percentage of success though. Again, PST did this really well.