Dialogues, should they be tied to your stats?

[Terror K]

I'd like to add that I believe there should be circumstances along the lines of the following:-

• If you are of a particular race, it should determine your level of success with other races based on that, and on various levels. For example, some races may automatically have a higher charisma than others, so they get a bonus, but this would be negated when dealing with a race that doesn't generally get along with yours due to some prejudice (though this may not always be the case, if certain members of that race are more enlightened and don't share the usual racism).
  
• When dealing with members that are the same race as you, they may be more inclined to get along with you and crumble to persuade attempts, but there may be exceptions to this. For example, if you are from a particular clan and dealing with somebody from a rival clan, then you may as well be dealing with somebody who is from an enemy race (or, depending on how tense the rivalry is, even worse). If certain races have certain traits familiar amongst them though, it may throw a cog in the works when dealing with their own people. For example, if trying to convince a member of your own species that something is true that is really a lie, while there are cases where they would believe you because you are of the same race, smart enough NPCs or NPCs of certain professions may know your character is lying because your race has a particular tell or skill they are aware of, since being one of you gives them knowledge of your mutual race that other races don't share. For example, elves may have a certain kind of persuasive technique unique to their race that will work on other races, but ones of their own kind may see through it.
  
• There should be differences between Persuasion and Intimidation (or whatever it's being called in PE). Along these lines, there should be additional changes depending on alignment and personality, and even standing. For example, using the extremes of a warlike barbarian PC with high Strength over a diplomatic clever PC with a high Intelligence, one barbarian PC would likely get along better with other barbarian-esque NPC characters, making both Persuading and Intimidating fairly even and high as far as success goes. However, a barbarian dealing with a diplomatic NPC would have a tougher time in general at persuading them, and there would likely be personality clashes. Whether a Persuasion or Intimidation would work would depend on circumstances, because a Persuasion may be favoured by the NPC because it seems more genuine and kind, while an Intimidate may cause them to flee, be frozen out of fear or refuse to deal with the PC because they are a bully, making it impossible for the player to get the information they want out of them. On the other hand, a bit of bullying might be necessary to make them talk. It would all depend on the personality. Conversely, a diplomatic character dealing with a barbarian may not get anywhere with their standard Persuasion methods because the barbarian NPC may see them as weak and pathetic, and this may force the diplomatic PC to try and Intimidate them, which the barbarian may see as a sign of strength and bravery, especially if the character is clearly smaller than them. It could, however, also resort in an axe to the face. Again... it all depends on personalities as well as race.
  
• The same goes for rich vs. poor. Whether this would be determined by purely physical appearance (i.e. cheap clothing and low-level armour vs. expensive clothing and high-level armour) or by a character's accomplishments, wealth and standing. A member of a Thieves Guild will get along well with lowlifes, criminals and homeless people, but not so well with nobles, politicians, aristocracy, royalty, etc. The same goes for the opposite. However, like racial traits, this can sometimes work both ways. For example, a Thief/Rogue PC dealing with others of their kind may generally get along better with them, but may have their attempts seen through because they are dealing with people in the same game and essentially trying to play a player. Similarly, they would generally not get along with the upper class citizens, but at the same time may be able to play them more and get away with more lies. Again, personalities, circumstances and stats vs. stats may throw spanners in the works and make exceptions to the rules, making things more dynamic and unpredictable, and forcing players to evaluate who they are dealing with carefully.
  
• Persuasions vs. the opposite sex could do with more depth than most games too, IMO. All too often flirts just work, ignoring personality and tastes, etc. The closest we've had to exceptions to this are alignment conflicts with romanceable companions, but there should be more I feel. First of all, to get this out the way, tavern wenches and whores generally shouldn't be fussy. Beyond that, I think we need more than just alignment restrictions on romances. That isn't to say that certain romances should be absolutely impossible with certain characters (though some will), but that some players will have to perhaps work harder if they want to get involved with another character. Personalities need to come into play beyond alignment, and even personal tastes as well. For example, to romance a particular companion perhaps the PC doesn't just have to be Good-aligned, but also have to have a certain level of Intelligence or Strength, because perhaps the possible romantic interest is into Intelligent or wise people and not into Tough Guys, or visa-versa. Perhaps certain subjects interest them more, and siding with certain factions or going against certain ones also interest them more or less. For example, killing a group of slavers may greatly impress a potential romance interest because she was once a slave herself, or perhaps she was once a guard and has a great sense of justice. Some partners may like absolute devotion and take a massive negative hit to your chances if you even flirt harmlessly with another person, even if it was just as a means to an end for a quest, while others may even be a little kinky and like the idea of bringing somebody else into the fold. Some may like peaceful solutions in general, but greatly approve of violence to a particular group of individuals for some reason, and visa versa. And, of course, some may be gay or lesbian and only be interested in PCs of the same sex, or perhaps bisexual and be into both. Whether this cuts them out completely or means a player has to really work hard to gain their interest by pretty much making all the right moves and no wrong ones is debatable. Racial traits may even apply too, as well as whether NPCs want something deep and everlasting or just a quick fling, and perhaps even questioning these factors (i.e. a character who thinks they want something deep, but doesn't, and a character who thought they wanted a quick fling, but then wants something more).
  
• I'd like to think that certain companions could be deferred to for certain circumstances too, to help your PC fill in gaps they can't with dialogue, just like they generally cover your weak areas in combat. For example, if you have no knowledge of magic because you are a Warrior, but you have a knowledgeable Mage in your party, you should be able to hand things off to them for explanations or insight. This may take the conversation out of your hands briefly, and you'd run the risk of perhaps having them say something you don't want, but that's the risk you take. Either defer to them trusting they'll back you and say what you want, or don't and possibly miss out on what they could provide.
  

Edited September 18, 2012 by Terror K

[Umberlin]

I feel like your options should be limited by the statistical, and other, character choices you make in conjuction with decisions you make within the game itself. Should your race potential shut some doors in an RPG? Yeah. Should it potentially open others? Yeah. Your choices should be the limiter. All your choices. You make the choice to limit your character to 2 intelligence, thus cementing that your character will never be spouting String Theory or solving Euclidean Geometry problems. You make the choice to have low Charisma and low Intelligence and end up with a character that other characters see as socially awkward and pretty stupid. You make the choice to have low strength and endurance and characters will see you as kinda dinky and unhealthy looking, and react to you and treat you as such.

 

Those limitations are needed. It's what forces you, from a numbers standpoint, to roleplay a specific character. Because the numbers, those statistics, your choices and the flags they set off, say what your character 'is'. What they can do. What they can say. How they are even able to say it.

 

The thing is I see people that want to be able to do or say anything they like, do 'everything' and not miss 'anything' regardless of their statistical, racial, gender, class and story choices. I can't get on board with that. I understand it, sure, but . . . that's why I like pen and paper and a Human DM, that's not cutting corners or playing favorites, right there that will quite literally not let you do 'anything' and force you to play within the limitations you've set for yourself. I have to . . . prefer that in any game. The limitations set in place by your choices should have impact and resonance in a story, and, obviously, that includes the dialogue.

 

That said I dislike the idea, 'lock out' when I tend to see it as a branch. I always felt like those choices should result in you having to play your cards differently, sure, but locking you out? Locking out suggests a dead end when what should happen is you just have to use the tools that you 'do' have to achieve your ends.

[ogrezilla]

I am perfectly happy making these choices. Really my only concern is that I want the choice to be intellegent or charismatic to be the same for a mage or a warrior. If the stats that dictate social interactions are mostly separate from stats that dictace combat, the game can be balanced as such. Too often though the same stats make you a good spell caster and conversationalist. Let me be an intelligent warrior or archer or wizard. Sure, my combat skills will be worse if I choose to invest in the social stats. That's fine. Same thing with strength often being linked to intimidation. If I want to threaten someone with a hammer, a knife or a fireball, I should be able to if I have the requisite skill to do so.

 

Basically I think persuasion and intelligence should either have little effect on combat, or they should be beneficial to any class in combat. That way every class can choose to give up some combat prowess to improve their social interactions.

Edited September 18, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Terror K]

I am perfectly happy making these choices. Really my only concern is that I want the choice to be intellegent or charismatic to be the same for a mage or a warrior. If the stats that dictate social interactions are mostly separate from stats that dictace combat, the game can be balanced as such. Too often though the same stats make you a good spell caster and conversationalist. Let me be an intelligent warrior or archer or wizard. Sure, my combat skills will be worse if I choose to invest in the social stats. That's fine. Same thing with strength often being linked to intimidation. If I want to threaten someone with a hammer, a knife or a fireball, I should be able to if I have the requisite skill to do so.

 

That has always been a problem with these type of RPGs when base stats determine social skills as well. While they make sense to a certain degree, I remember having quite a hard time of things during my earliest playthroughs of RPGs because I wanted to create Warriors/Fighters who weren't complete boneheads, so I often ended up spending points in Intelligence and/or Wisdom as well just so they could get a good array of conversation options. The problem is, it was completely useless in combat, and spending the points there instead of in Strength and Constitution basically borked my character in combat. I'm all for avoiding the "Master of All Trades" syndrome that can affect RPGs that give too much freedom, but it's not like these Warriors/Fighters I was making were using magic or anywhere near as competent at Thief/Rogue skills such as unlocking things and disarming traps, etc.

[Umberlin]

I am perfectly happy making these choices. Really my only concern is that I want the choice to be intellegent or charismatic to be the same for a mage or a warrior. If the stats that dictate social interactions are mostly separate from stats that dictace combat, the game can be balanced as such. Too often though the same stats make you a good spell caster and conversationalist. Let me be an intelligent warrior or archer or wizard. Sure, my combat skills will be worse if I choose to invest in the social stats. That's fine. Same thing with strength often being linked to intimidation. If I want to threaten someone with a hammer, a knife or a fireball, I should be able to if I have the requisite skill to do so.

 

Basically I think persuasion and intelligence should either have little effect on combat, or they should be beneficial to any class in combat. That way every class can choose to give up some combat prowess to improve their social interactions.

 

It's relative, in theory you could pump intelligence to the level of a Wizard in the DnD sense, certainly if you so chose. As you said your combat would suffer, but you could. However would you be intelligent in the same way as the Wizard? Without the comparable Wizard levels to said Wizard you wouldn't have any of their Wizard oriented knowledge or specialization that they might add to a conversation. And, really, why would you?

 

That said the same happens on the other side of things, all things being of equal intelligence, and you're a Fighter, a Wizard wouldn't necessarily have your knowledge of physical combat tactics . . . though one could argue, being you've upped your intelligence, and neglected your combat prowess, that you might not know some combat oriented stuff that another Fighter might know despite being less intelligent. This is where I come into the idea that the Warrior with lower intelligence would be able to accomplish his goals as readily as the Wizard, he'd just do so through different means. No less capable, just capable of different things by the chocies he made. Statistical choices and Class specialization choices aren't necessarily linked. I'm not sure that you should be able to do, 'what that guy can' just because you're both smart, as your class choices represent different life choices and knowledge bases.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Umberlin

[Metabot]

I'd like to add that I believe there should be circumstances along the lines of the following:-

• If you are of a particular race, it should determine your level of success with other races based on that, and on various levels. For example, some races may automatically have a higher charisma than others, so they get a bonus, but this would be negated when dealing with a race that doesn't generally get along with yours due to some prejudice (though this may not always be the case, if certain members of that race are more enlightened and don't share the usual racism).
  
• When dealing with members that are the same race as you, they may be more inclined to get along with you and crumble to persuade attempts, but there may be exceptions to this. For example, if you are from a particular clan and dealing with somebody from a rival clan, then you may as well be dealing with somebody who is from an enemy race (or, depending on how tense the rivalry is, even worse). If certain races have certain traits familiar amongst them though, it may throw a cog in the works when dealing with their own people. For example, if trying to convince a member of your own species that something is true that is really a lie, while there are cases where they would believe you because you are of the same race, smart enough NPCs or NPCs of certain professions may know your character is lying because your race has a particular tell or skill they are aware of, since being one of you gives them knowledge of your mutual race that other races don't share. For example, elves may have a certain kind of persuasive technique unique to their race that will work on other races, but ones of their own kind may see through it.
  
• There should be differences between Persuasion and Intimidation (or whatever it's being called in PE). Along these lines, there should be additional changes depending on alignment and personality, and even standing. For example, using the extremes of a warlike barbarian PC with high Strength over a diplomatic clever PC with a high Intelligence, one barbarian PC would likely get along better with other barbarian-esque NPC characters, making both Persuading and Intimidating fairly even and high as far as success goes. However, a barbarian dealing with a diplomatic NPC would have a tougher time in general at persuading them, and there would likely be personality clashes. Whether a Persuasion or Intimidation would work would depend on circumstances, because a Persuasion may be favoured by the NPC because it seems more genuine and kind, while an Intimidate may cause them to flee, be frozen out of fear or refuse to deal with the PC because they are a bully, making it impossible for the player to get the information they want out of them. On the other hand, a bit of bullying might be necessary to make them talk. It would all depend on the personality. Conversely, a diplomatic character dealing with a barbarian may not get anywhere with their standard Persuasion methods because the barbarian NPC may see them as weak and pathetic, and this may force the diplomatic PC to try and Intimidate them, which the barbarian may see as a sign of strength and bravery, especially if the character is clearly smaller than them. It could, however, also resort in an axe to the face. Again... it all depends on personalities as well as race.
  
• The same goes for rich vs. poor. Whether this would be determined by purely physical appearance (i.e. cheap clothing and low-level armour vs. expensive clothing and high-level armour) or by a character's accomplishments, wealth and standing. A member of a Thieves Guild will get along well with lowlifes, criminals and homeless people, but not so well with nobles, politicians, aristocracy, royalty, etc. The same goes for the opposite. However, like racial traits, this can sometimes work both ways. For example, a Thief/Rogue PC dealing with others of their kind may generally get along better with them, but may have their attempts seen through because they are dealing with people in the same game and essentially trying to play a player. Similarly, they would generally not get along with the upper class citizens, but at the same time may be able to play them more and get away with more lies. Again, personalities, circumstances and stats vs. stats may throw spanners in the works and make exceptions to the rules, making things more dynamic and unpredictable, and forcing players to evaluate who they are dealing with carefully.
  
• Persuasions vs. the opposite sex could do with more depth than most games too, IMO. All too often flirts just work, ignoring personality and tastes, etc. The closest we've had to exceptions to this are alignment conflicts with romanceable companions, but there should be more I feel. First of all, to get this out the way, tavern wenches and whores generally shouldn't be fussy. Beyond that, I think we need more than just alignment restrictions on romances. That isn't to say that certain romances should be absolutely impossible with certain characters (though some will), but that some players will have to perhaps work harder if they want to get involved with another character. Personalities need to come into play beyond alignment, and even personal tastes as well. For example, to romance a particular companion perhaps the PC doesn't just have to be Good-aligned, but also have to have a certain level of Intelligence or Strength, because perhaps the possible romantic interest is into Intelligent or wise people and not into Tough Guys, or visa-versa. Perhaps certain subjects interest them more, and siding with certain factions or going against certain ones also interest them more or less. For example, killing a group of slavers may greatly impress a potential romance interest because she was once a slave herself, or perhaps she was once a guard and has a great sense of justice. Some partners may like absolute devotion and take a massive negative hit to your chances if you even flirt harmlessly with another person, even if it was just as a means to an end for a quest, while others may even be a little kinky and like the idea of bringing somebody else into the fold. Some may like peaceful solutions in general, but greatly approve of violence to a particular group of individuals for some reason, and visa versa. And, of course, some may be gay or lesbian and only be interested in PCs of the same sex, or perhaps bisexual and be into both. Whether this cuts them out completely or means a player has to really work hard to gain their interest by pretty much making all the right moves and no wrong ones is debatable. Racial traits may even apply too, as well as whether NPCs want something deep and everlasting or just a quick fling, and perhaps even questioning these factors (i.e. a character who thinks they want something deep, but doesn't, and a character who thought they wanted a quick fling, but then wants something more).
  
• I'd like to think that certain companions could be deferred to for certain circumstances too, to help your PC fill in gaps they can't with dialogue, just like they generally cover your weak areas in combat. For example, if you have no knowledge of magic because you are a Warrior, but you have a knowledgeable Mage in your party, you should be able to hand things off to them for explanations or insight. This may take the conversation out of your hands briefly, and you'd run the risk of perhaps having them say something you don't want, but that's the risk you take. Either defer to them trusting they'll back you and say what you want, or don't and possibly miss out on what they could provide.
  

 

Agree

 

Maybe there should be a separate group of stats for speech and dialogue related gameplay such as speech, charisma, diplomacy, street skills, etiquette, etc. a la Age of Decadence.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Metabot

[Chunkyman]

Yes. Dialogue should be tied to stats, your reputation with factions, past actions, and whether the character you're talking to likes/dislikes you.

 

I'll give some examples. Let's say the main character is talking to a bandit who is trying to rob him. If the main character has high strength, he can have a special dialogue option where he can intimidate the bandit into leaving him alone. Or maybe the main character has a high reputation with the "bandit" faction, allowing you to tell him that robbing you will get him into trouble with the bandit leader. Another possibility is if a past action, like saving the bandit's brother from orcs, allows you to remind the bandit that he owes you one and that he should leave you be. And of course there is the standard "buttering him up" so that he likes you and decides he doesn't want to rob you.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Chunkyman

[ogrezilla]

I am perfectly happy making these choices. Really my only concern is that I want the choice to be intellegent or charismatic to be the same for a mage or a warrior. If the stats that dictate social interactions are mostly separate from stats that dictace combat, the game can be balanced as such. Too often though the same stats make you a good spell caster and conversationalist. Let me be an intelligent warrior or archer or wizard. Sure, my combat skills will be worse if I choose to invest in the social stats. That's fine. Same thing with strength often being linked to intimidation. If I want to threaten someone with a hammer, a knife or a fireball, I should be able to if I have the requisite skill to do so.

 

Basically I think persuasion and intelligence should either have little effect on combat, or they should be beneficial to any class in combat. That way every class can choose to give up some combat prowess to improve their social interactions.

 

It's relative, in theory you could pump intelligence to the level of a Wizard in the DnD sense, certainly if you so chose. As you said your combat would suffer, but you could. However would you be intelligent in the same way as the Wizard? Without the comparable Wizard levels to said Wizard you wouldn't have any of their Wizard oriented knowledge or specialization that they might add to a conversation. And, really, why would you?

 

That said the same happens on the other side of things, all things being of equal intelligence, and you're a Fighter, a Wizard wouldn't necessarily have your knowledge of physical combat tactics . . . though one could argue, being you've upped your intelligence, and neglected your combat prowess, that you might not know some combat oriented stuff that another Fighter might know despite being less intelligent. This is where I come into the idea that the Warrior with lower intelligence would be able to accomplish his goals as readily as the Wizard, he'd just do so through different means. No less capable, just capable of different things by the chocies he made. Statistical choices and Class specialization choices aren't necessarily linked. I'm not sure that you should be able to do, 'what that guy can' just because you're both smart, as your class choices represent different life choices and knowledge bases.

that's fine. the warrior doesn't have to do it the same was as the mage. The class should be a factor too. I'm just saying in general, making an intelligent or persuasive warrior should be just as viable an option as an intelligent or persuasive mage. They could use the intelligence differently. I don't want my warrior to start reciting spells and I don't want my mage to threaten to club a guy with his staff. Both classes would have the choice of being great at their combat skills but bad socially, or they could give up some combat skills to improve their social skills. Most RPG's like this basically push you into being a magic user if you want to have good social skills.

[ogrezilla]

Yes. Dialogue should be tied to stats, your reputation with factions, past actions, and whether the character you're talking to likes/dislikes you.

 

I'll give some examples. Let's say the main character is talking to a bandit who is trying to rob him. If the main character has high strength, he can have a special dialogue option where he can intimidate the bandit into leaving him alone. Or maybe the main character has a high reputation with the "bandit" faction, allowing you to tell him that robbing you will get him into trouble with the bandit leader. Another possibility is if a past action, like saving the bandit's brother from orcs, allows you to remind the bandit that he owes you one and that he should leave you be. And of course there is the standard "buttering him up" so that he likes you and decides he doesn't want to rob you.

 

why can't my mage intimidate him with a fireball? why can't my rogue intimidate him with a dagger to the throat?

[Terror K]

That said the same happens on the other side of things, all things being of equal intelligence, and you're a Fighter, a Wizard wouldn't necessarily have your knowledge of physical combat tactics . . . though one could argue, being you've upped your intelligence, and neglected your combat prowess, that you might not know some combat oriented stuff that another Fighter might know despite being less intelligent. This is where I come into the idea that the Warrior with lower intelligence would be able to accomplish his goals as readily as the Wizard, he'd just do so through different means. No less capable, just capable of different things by the chocies he made. Statistical choices and Class specialization choices aren't necessarily linked. I'm not sure that you should be able to do, 'what that guy can' just because you're both smart, your class choices represent different life choices and knowledge bases.

 

The problem is, in game conversations, 95% of RPGs that use these base stats in conversations don't treat it like this. During combat Intelligence us purely used to govern magical ability and strength rather than the actual intelligence of a character, but then you jump into a conversation and suddenly Intelligence determines how smart a character is and rarely has anything to do with magic directly. And that's kind of the problem there: that these stats reflect two different things in combat vs. conversations. It would all be very well if a Mage with high Intelligence were getting extra dialogue choices based on their magical knowledge (which is how it should be, IMO) but they're getting them based on how intelligent they are in the traditional sense of the word. The same allies to Wisdom.

 

Perhaps what the game needs to do is actually avoid calling Intelligence "intelligence" and go for something like "Magica" or something, and then instead of base stats determining a character's actual Intelligence, characters all the option of several Skills or Feats based on certain knowledges, some of which they'd get automatically based on class, traits, backgrounds, etc. and some they'd get based on choices. For example, you might get choices like Knowledge: Arcane Lore, Knowledge: Politics, Knowledge: Particular Region of World, Knowledge: Particular Race, Knowledge: Hand-to-hand Combat, etc. The more points you spend on these Knowledges, the more Intelligent your character is, and they'll get extra options based on these knowledges, and then get a bonus Intelligence modifier based on how many knowledges they have. These knowledges may also boots certain combat-related aspects, for example Knowledge: Hand-to-hand Combat might give a +2 to Hit or +2 damage to all hand-to-hand combat rolls.

 

On top of that, perhaps certain knowledges would need others that are semi-related to them. For instance, say a Mage has Knowledge: Arcane Lore but does not have Knowledge: Spellweaving. Perhaps when asked in dialogue about the subject of Spellweaving the PC would not get the +5 bonus to convince the NPC they are talking to that they know about the subject, but they may get the otherwise hidden dialogue option none-the-less and still get a +2 on it because they still have Knowledge: Arcane Lore.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Terror K

[Chaz]

I mostly like how F:NV did it!

[ogrezilla]

I would like a system where things like intimidation could be based on each classes main combat stat. Warriors can have strength, rogues can have dexterity and mages can have whatever they want to call it, but I suggest not calling it intelligence. That way characters who are great in combat still get some social options. Most other social skills would be based on intelligence and persuasion or whatever they want to call them.

Edited September 18, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Chunkyman]

Yes. Dialogue should be tied to stats, your reputation with factions, past actions, and whether the character you're talking to likes/dislikes you.

 

I'll give some examples. Let's say the main character is talking to a bandit who is trying to rob him. If the main character has high strength, he can have a special dialogue option where he can intimidate the bandit into leaving him alone. Or maybe the main character has a high reputation with the "bandit" faction, allowing you to tell him that robbing you will get him into trouble with the bandit leader. Another possibility is if a past action, like saving the bandit's brother from orcs, allows you to remind the bandit that he owes you one and that he should leave you be. And of course there is the standard "buttering him up" so that he likes you and decides he doesn't want to rob you.

 

why can't my mage intimidate him with a fireball? why can't my rogue intimidate him with a dagger to the throat?

 

I was just giving examples. No reason why there can't be even more intimidation methods.

[ogrezilla]

Yes. Dialogue should be tied to stats, your reputation with factions, past actions, and whether the character you're talking to likes/dislikes you.

 

I'll give some examples. Let's say the main character is talking to a bandit who is trying to rob him. If the main character has high strength, he can have a special dialogue option where he can intimidate the bandit into leaving him alone. Or maybe the main character has a high reputation with the "bandit" faction, allowing you to tell him that robbing you will get him into trouble with the bandit leader. Another possibility is if a past action, like saving the bandit's brother from orcs, allows you to remind the bandit that he owes you one and that he should leave you be. And of course there is the standard "buttering him up" so that he likes you and decides he doesn't want to rob you.

 

why can't my mage intimidate him with a fireball? why can't my rogue intimidate him with a dagger to the throat?

 

I was just giving examples. No reason why there can't be even more intimidation methods.

ya sorry I think I realized that after I responded haha

[ogrezilla]

 

 

The problem is, in game conversations, 95% of RPGs that use these base stats in conversations don't treat it like this. During combat Intelligence us purely used to govern magical ability and strength rather than the actual intelligence of a character, but then you jump into a conversation and suddenly Intelligence determines how smart a character is and rarely has anything to do with magic directly. And that's kind of the problem there: that these stats reflect two different things in combat vs. conversations. It would all be very well if a Mage with high Intelligence were getting extra dialogue choices based on their magical knowledge (which is how it should be, IMO) but they're getting them based on how intelligent they are in the traditional sense of the word. The same allies to Wisdom.

 

this pretty much sums up my opinion of the problem

[Umberlin]

That said the same happens on the other side of things, all things being of equal intelligence, and you're a Fighter, a Wizard wouldn't necessarily have your knowledge of physical combat tactics . . . though one could argue, being you've upped your intelligence, and neglected your combat prowess, that you might not know some combat oriented stuff that another Fighter might know despite being less intelligent. This is where I come into the idea that the Warrior with lower intelligence would be able to accomplish his goals as readily as the Wizard, he'd just do so through different means. No less capable, just capable of different things by the chocies he made. Statistical choices and Class specialization choices aren't necessarily linked. I'm not sure that you should be able to do, 'what that guy can' just because you're both smart, your class choices represent different life choices and knowledge bases.

 

The problem is, in game conversations, 95% of RPGs that use these base stats in conversations don't treat it like this.

 

I understand that. I just feel they should. I think some of the problems as mentioned earlier can be avoided by playing the system straight, instead of fiddling.

 

During combat Intelligence us purely used to govern magical ability and strength rather than the actual intelligence of a character, but then you jump into a conversation and suddenly Intelligence determines how smart a character is and rarely has anything to do with magic directly. And that's kind of the problem there: that these stats reflect two different things in combat vs. conversations. It would all be very well if a Mage with high Intelligence were getting extra dialogue choices based on their magical knowledge (which is how it should be, IMO) but they're getting them based on how intelligent they are in the traditional sense of the word. The same allies to Wisdom.

 

Perhaps what the game needs to do is actually avoid calling Intelligence "intelligence" and go for something like "Magica" or something, and then instead of base stats determining a character's actual Intelligence, characters all the option of several Skills or Feats based on certain knowledges, some of which they'd get automatically based on class, traits, backgrounds, etc. and some they'd get based on choices. For example, you might get choices like Knowledge: Arcane Lore, Knowledge: Politics, Knowledge: Particular Region of World, Knowledge: Particular Race, Knowledge: Hand-to-hand Combat, etc. The more points you spend on these Knowledges, the more Intelligent your character is, and they'll get extra options based on these knowledges, and then get a bonus Intelligence modifier based on how many knowledges they have. These knowledges may also boots certain combat-related aspects, for example Knowledge: Hand-to-hand Combat might give a +2 to Hit or +2 damage to all hand-to-hand combat rolls.

 

On top of that, perhaps certain knowledges would need others that are semi-related to them. For instance, say a Mage has Knowledge: Arcane Lore but does not have Knowledge: Spellweaving. Perhaps when asked in dialogue about the subject of Spellweaving the PC would not get the +5 bonus to convince the NPC they are talking to that they know about the subject, but they may get the otherwise hidden dialogue option none-the-less and still get a +2 on it because they still have Knowledge: Arcane Lore.

 

I can't disagree really, in fact I think we see eye to eye it's just a matter of what we wish games would do on the PC or Console versus what they tend to do instead. When it comes to DnD style rules (and I guess we have no idea that they'll be using that system here, I just use this example as . . . well an example) anyways. In the end I have a lot of trust in Obsidian to make a game with characters and story I enjoy regardless, but I do think it's nice to talk about.

 

Thank you for the well thought out reply. It was definitely worth reading.

[Longknife]

Personally I'd love to see Charisma influence your dialog choices.

 

Give high charisma characters the witty and funny lines while providing them with basics like "Would you mind telling me where I can find Brian?" while the low charisma characters get "Tell me where Brian is now" and get treated differently because of it. Make high charisma characters handle an enemy provokation with a confident "I don't think you know what you're getting yourself into" or a reasonable "There's no reason we can't both walk away from this without a lot of unneccesary bruises, right?" whereas low charisma characters get a "**** you" or a "Leave me alone/Don't touch me!"

 

I'm sure many people would also enjoy a return of low-intelligence playthroughs from Fallout.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Longknife

[Metabot]

My hope is that it'll be a bit more complex on the dialog side of things with multiple stats and circumstances affecting it.

[Irx]

What I don't want are random rolls to determine success, anything else is fine.

[D_F]

Also, some NPC's to be mutually exclusive would be a nice thing to have.

[Krios]

I voted for all of the above. Variety is what I believe most people will want, keeps things fresh. If we were to tie conversations to just one or two stats, actions, etc, players will quickly figure out how to get the 'best' replies. Conversing with NPCs quickly become a minigame that players want to get the best possible outcome.

[trulez]

It's a text heavy RPG without voice overs, which means endless possibilities how the conversation could go, so yes there should be options which are tied to your stats and not available for everyone.

 

I very much liked how they did it in NWN2: MOTB, a very high score in WIS and LORE gave you insight and opened up bunch of things.

[Karranthain]

It's a text heavy RPG without voice overs, which means endless possibilities how the conversation could go, so yes there should be options which are tied to your stats and not available for everyone.

 

I very much liked how they did it in NWN2: MOTB, a very high score in WIS and LORE gave you insight and opened up bunch of things.

 

Yeah, after all it's the whole point of roleplaying games - roleplaying a certain character. That's where stats come in.

[grotbag]

I still don't understand the need for stats. Of course there is underlying math: it's a computer program. Why can't those base number be set automatically, and then each player develops his own reputation within the game. What does an 18 charisma even mean to an NPC? All that 18 is, is a quantitative interpretation of how your character acts and deals with that npc. Why can't how your character acts just be how your character acts? I understand why the system developed: it's much easier for a DM managing a table-top session take two numbers, see which is bigger, and tell you if you succeeded or not, than it is for him to juggle half a dozen variables. But we're not talking about a DM, we're talking about a little piece of metal and plastic that can do billions of calculations a second.

 

Haaang on. You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who wants their character's role-playing to be as realistic as possible. From this perspective, removing stats from the equation is quite clearly far, far more limiting than including them, because you're killing off character definition to behaviour alone. Realistically, two different people committing exactly the same deed will not receive the same reaction. Realistically, someone who's skilled in the ways of deception will always be able to pull the wool over your eyes with less effort than someone who isn't. Realistically, charismatic hero-types will always be supported rather more enthusiastically by their local communities than hideous foul-smelling crones, no matter if both of them were witnessed giving a coin to that orphan.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with what you're positively advocating - in a game with unlimited resources, it'd be brilliant if player characters who are suitably cunning but not particularly good at lying could construct elaborate hoaxes to frame NPC1 for NPC2's murder, instead of testifying that they'd seen NPC1 do it, or whatever - but it seems incredibly strange to want all of this complicated work while also removing stat checks from dialogue, when the end result is that you aren't allowed to, say, create an uncharismatic character who behaves ethically but never gains the trust of those around him, because you've taken away the player character's innate qualities and replaced them with player behaviour alone.

 

As others have said, in an ideal world, a mixture of both would be great - something like Arcanum's reaction modifier, but less immediately beatable. PC is naturally likeable? (+reaction). PC completes a quest for the NPC? (+reaction). There's a rumour going around that the PC's used his speech skills to have an affair with the innkeeper's wife? Well, the PC is handsome; perhaps the innkeeper should be jealous... (-reaction)/Ha! That ugly CHR1 devil! Not a chance (reaction unaffected).

 

Stats don't limit dialogue any more than they limit anything else; they define the playstyle, they provide masses of replay content, and they give the player's choice of character genuine value within the game world. As many, and as varied and inventive, conditionals during dialogue as possible, plz!

Edited September 20, 2012 by grotbag

[Kyzariel]

My 2 cents: Dialogue will never please everyone nor will it be able to cover everything. Having it overtly complex doesn't help, but neither does a simplistic approach. Sure enough, stats help organize things, but these are emotional and social interactions we are talking about and it will always be hard to quantify them. Last but not least, dialogue is at the heart of NPC interaction, and through it, interaction with the game world. Sometimes you don't need to persuade anyone to do anything in order to have an enjoyable and meaningful conversation.

 

The most important things, for me at least, are:

• to provide the player with options in case of a missed dialogue opportunity (e.g. solving a quest by other means than skilful dialogue or at least getting help from party members when diplomatic skills are a must)
  
• if stats are present the dialogue mechanism should be transparent so that a player willing to maximize its effectiveness should be able to do so (at the cost of other skills, of course), as with any other statistic. Then dialogue necessarily becomes a balancing issue along with combat. If combat and dialogue compete for the same statistic points, then the cost of each should be directly related to the effectiveness they have in game (the fewer situations where dialogue avoids/solves conflicts there are, the cheaper the cost to become an expert in dialogue skills should be)
  
• if stats are absent, dialogue effects are still a balancing issue, but it will be less about formulas used than situations where these occur
  
• the good parts (i.e. those evoking most emotional response from the player - again something hard to quantify, but I imagine most people should be able to differentiate them from the mass of passive lines) should be given most depth and care. The player should have a large freedom of choice here.
  

 

I am more than confident that if the folks at Obsidian just do their usual thing, the dialogue will come out just fine. (The above were pretty much covered.)

Edited September 20, 2012 by Kyzariel