There's already a long topic about a pair of narrow areas of dialogue. But dialogue is a huge, broad topic with a lot to cover.

 

The first is that, traditionally dialogue choices made presentable by things like a high intelligence score are automatically "better" than any other option. It's just a reward for you having that high int score, but it's not really interesting gameplay wise. Couldn't instead things like a high intelligence score open up previously unavailable option that might be an interesting viable option, rather than simply "better"?

 

This brings up the question of who speaks for your party. Again, traditionally the Player Character speaks for the whole party. Which essentially means that if you want the options for better outcomes, or at least more choices, you need your PC to have a high int score, high charisma score, or etc. It's been discussed whether others in the group should be able to speak, or whether the group as a whole should have bonuses.

 

But having a party member that isn't your PC speak brings up the question of whether you, the player, is in control of everyone, or whether there can even be the conceit that your party members are independent people with their own goals at all. If you are the higher controlling power of all, then you can't actually have a party member get angry at an action taken, because the conceit is now that you are all controlling and why suddenly can't you control them now?

 

It also brings up the question of why you would have entire dialogue paths for low intelligence or low charisma characters. Specifically choosing options you know is bad when you have "better" options available is an option, but not one a lot of people are going to feel good about choosing when they might otherwise have enjoyed the low Intelligence/low Charisma dialogue. It's been suggested that your party members butt in when it matches their personalities to do so, with their own equivalent of the higher INT dialogue option that you can choose.

 

Then there's the question of timed dialogue events. You might have seen these in Alpha Protocol and/or The Witcher 2. You are given a choice to make, and a time limit in which to do it. Alpha Protocol had these all the time, The Witcher 2 had these only for very specific extra time sensitive events. What do people think of these in Project Eternity?

I think that tying combat and non-combat aspects to the same attribute is a bad design. I don't want to be story-gimped because as a warrior, I need points in strength and not in intelligence/charisma.

 

The combat should have one set of skills and attributes, non-combat should have another.

I think that tying combat and non-combat aspects to the same attribute is a bad design. I don't want to be story-gimped because as a warrior, I need points in strength and not in intelligence/charisma.

 

The combat should have one set of skills and attributes, non-combat should have another.

 

Yup.. why it should be limited to that, I don't understand.. this is a new system, so let's break the mould.

 

How about we have dialog choices that are based on class.. and race.. and situations as well as decisions made in the past.. how about choices based on our reputation and fame across the land.. our actions in combat.. how many puzzles we solved.. things that are not tied down to specific stats but rather to things that all character types have the ability to affect throughout the game.

Sorry to derail your topic here, but can't I like "Offer options that are sometimes an obvious reward" AND trains?

 

But it wouldn't be right for me to post without contributing, so I should say I like the idea that my companions can intercede my conversation when it suits them, even if it doesn't suit me. I don't need a party of yes men or mute drones, I need a party of people.

Second, I liked timed dialogue when appropriate in the Witcher 2, but I don't feel it should be used in a cRPG like PE. I could be convinced otherwise though, and wouldn't throw a fit if it were implemented.

Third, it's absolutely necessary that stats influence dialogue options (strength too, you don't need to be charismatic to threaten someone). I would like it though if some of these options could backfire, with subtle context clues to indicate that they might. That way I'd actually have to think about choosing to use my intelligence in dialogue, with fear that I might insult instead of add insight. It should be fairly clear which to choose when encountering established characters, but I might get thrown off guard when encountering a new NPC, for example.

I'm a big supporter of party members being their own men/women, and interceding when they want to. Having a conversation disrupted by a party member with strong views makes it a hell of a lot more interesting than the usual RPG stance, which is to allow you to do what you want, and your companions complain about it later. Parties should reflect the kind of character the player/player character is, and I don't think having them meekly following while you do what you want is either realistic or particularly interesting (unless that's part of a follower's character).

No. If any one stat is going to be able to give you a "dialog" option then they all need to do it. Planescape did a few things I really REALLY don't like. The top offender was forcing everyone to play with mage priest stats if they wanted to experience the whole game. It basically invalidated almost every class in the game.

 

The smarter way to do it would be to base it on skill score. Such as Drakensang: The River of Time, which in my opinion is the best iteration of the "infinity engine" style game. You had many straight speech skills like Seduce, Haggle, Fast Talk (bluff in other words), and others like Streetwise, Survival, Human Intuition, even blacksmithing might get used for a speech check here or there. Best thing, the game always based the check off of the person in your team with the highest value in those skills. So even if you the main character couldn't fast talk your way past a paper bag that sly thief in your party could and he would step up to do it for you.

 

Other than Alpha Protocol I don't think a single Obsidian made game has as good a conversation system.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Karkarov

Shouldn't statistics that you build early in the game stay put through and through and only be affected by items and some rare "Stat" upgrades?

 

Isn't that what defines our "Presence"?

 

EDIT:

 

How do you want NPC's to react to you, if based on all of your stats collectively?

 

I feel that all stats together should accumulate the "personality" of story driven companions (Main character, Non-Hall Companions). Basically Character Creation?

 

19 Str

18 Dex

18 Con

8 Int

14 Wis

8 Cha

 

Something like that is my recent Half-Orc Pit Fighter main on my current playthrough in Baldur's Gate II. I envision him to be big, and people look up to him in both fear and respect. Dumb but wise, he snapped up some of the knowledge from the Keep. He is pretty bad at presenting himself good, clumsy in his words and splurts out nonsense. He is very kind and very very naive, and little of his Half-Orc blood is shown in his manners. It is in battle it shows and grows. Can you see it with the statistics taken into account?

 

Does the statistics reflect my little character concept I made up?

 

I'm not too fond of the idea that statistics are devalued by "Skill Points" that grows per level, because kind of define how you see your character. Personal preference (I say this with lots of influence from playing Baldur's Gate lots currently). Tried booting up Dragon Age 2 some weeks ago to finish it but I quit it twice as I hit landfall after the prologue. I just didn't want to deal with it. Dragon Age doesn't have much weight on the stats, they are there and you have to spend one or two each level like a resource and a routine. They have no real value for your character. In Origins, your character is defined by appearance in character creation.

 

If Candlekeep is tedious, only in sense of argument, I feel that Dragon Age 2 would be a good way to explain a good game for its engine in terms of opening area. It fails at being a good narrative story when you are Dynasty Warriors on the battlefield. Enemies need to be taken into account as well.

 

Would the "dialogue" between you and your opponent differ? Would a heavy STR character villain, in battle, react differently to you depending on your statistics?

Edited November 2, 201213 yr by Osvir

Timed dialogue events are the devil. They have no place in a roleplaying game.

 

And I still want to be able to have any party member act as party spokesperson (with player-selected dialogue).

Sometimes; choose the party member but not necessarily always be able to choose the most advantageous dialogue for them (they're independent minded and will sometimes assert themselves); and no timed dialogues. We'll have "pause 'n' play", so timing would be pointless. If I get called away from the computer for some reason, I expect that the game will wait patiently in "paused mode" for me to return.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Tsuga C

You're aware that there's a i want to be a dragon option missing.

I like the option of a character with high charisma to be charming during dialogue as much as i like a character with high strength to be intimidating

 

I love low intelligence options FO:NV has a great moment where arcade will take pity on you and help you because you so very badly need it.

 

I would like the high charisma option to be there even for people with a low stat, so they can try and charm and fail.

 

Timed dialogue options in a game like this I'm not sure I like the idea of.

 

Although I voted otherwise may I point out I do like trains, owls and bananas!

Edit time ran out.

 

I'm not too fond of the idea that statistics are devalued by "Skill Points" that grows per level, because kind of define how you see your character. Personal preference (I say this with lots of influence from playing Baldur's Gate lots currently). Tried booting up Dragon Age 2 some weeks ago to finish it but I quit it twice as I hit landfall after the prologue. I just didn't want to deal with it. Dragon Age doesn't have much weight on the stats, they are there and you have to spend one or two each level like a resource and a routine. They have no real value for your character. In Origins, your character is defined by appearance in character creation. Truthfully I'd prefer if both appearance and statistics were somewhat interlinked and representing in both character creation and dialogue. In character creation a high Str would give you a more muscular paper doll, whilst a low Str would give you less. Lots of constitution could make your paper doll tall.

 

Combinatons, low Strength, low Dexterity, High Constitution, average Wisdom, average Intelligence, high Charisma could make you a little bit more fat (Winthrop? <3).

 

8 Str

8 Dex

18 Con

12 Wis

12 Int

18 Cha

Edited November 2, 201213 yr by Osvir

Make each stat and probably some skills matter in dialog.

Mage, rolling fireball in his hands could be quite as intimidating as brutish barbarian smashing bricks with his head. It will cost them though - spell cast for mage an few hp for warrior. And both could fail such attempt: first - to someone not-so-intelligent or on the contrary - more skilled in magic, or someone fire resistant, second one - to some more bulky ogre, or to some ghost with little respect for material.

 

About companions - I'd like to see them being able to participate in dialog on player's request. Say - "what's that crazy wizard talking about? <Party mage's name> try to talk to him." "Thugs? <Party barbarian name> convince them they'd better pass by." Except from obvious outcomes - first one could result in: "And you are pretending to be a wizard? Die ignorant fool!" Second one in: "We were passing by already, but if you are seeking for trouble... - here you are!" All based on your companion's (speech?) stats. Same (unexpected) outcomes can occur if you give a word to your barbarian on wizard congregation, or your wizard in the barbarian tribe.

These outcomes should be predictable somehow, punishing for silly decisions, but rewarding you if you stray from common reason consciously, based on collected lore or lucky intuition.

Edited November 2, 201213 yr by SGray

I do like extra dialogue options from stats, skills, and occasional other things; I don't prefer if it's very obvious (I'd rather not know exactly where the extra dialogue options are coming from, I prefer them to just appear).

 

I definitely prefer being able to select any party member for dialogue, and control what they say.

 

Timed dialogue choices are to me an annoyance more than anything.

Dialogue should not be associated with rewards, it should be associated with what kind of character you're RPing.

 

Unless you're talking to some shady merchant or noble who says "I will give you so much gold you could eat it all and **** gold for weeks if you do x morally questionable quest for me!" or enrolling in some form of academic/training institution with a set goal, (like getting a degree in crustaceomancy,) you shouldn't generally get a paginated list of rewards for any given course of action. That would just encourage powergaming.

 

And no, conversations should not be quicktime events. It's believable, sure, but it's not that believable when you have a protagonist who can be like Zack on Saved by the Bell and call Time Out at any time during battle to change his team's tactics. Yes, RTWP combat is Saved by the Bell.

 

As much as I love Telltale's Walking Dead game, PE is not Telltale's Walking Dead game.

Edited November 2, 201213 yr by AGX-17

Hmmm, using KOTOR2 as base, pretty much all INT options are just giving you a little more information, and are far away from being the "better" option. They don't really reward you besides with backstory.

 

And if you want every little piece of backstory you would need to cheat all your stats and skills to the max. So, yeah, don't want to go to limit it all just because someone might not have a stat that high...

By reward in my "always" vote i mean - not financial or material - but information reward, emotional reward, side quest, alternate approach to story line....

Statistics derived dialogue options should sometimes offer a reward. Like OE folks have said before, don't make it a no-brainer. But sometimes, you just have to hand out rewards to that character who pumped his diplomacy skill so his skill points weren't wasted.

 

I very much liked the feature in SoZ where all your party members could chime in with their own skills and stats, and it was appropriate that you chose their answers - since otherwise, you also could have them under full control (and who didn't do that).

 

Timed dialogue - blimey, I've never played a game that had those.And I don't think I missed out huge.

 

I also like trains and owls

Something like that is my recent Half-Orc Pit Fighter main on my current playthrough in Baldur's Gate II. I envision him to be big, and people look up to him in both fear and respect. Dumb but wise, he snapped up some of the knowledge from the Keep. He is pretty bad at presenting himself good, clumsy in his words and splurts out nonsense. He is very kind and very very naive, and little of his Half-Orc blood is shown in his manners. It is in battle it shows and grows. Can you see it with the statistics taken into account?

 

I wouldn't respect some meathead orc incapable of coherent speech unless he had some set of morals or honor.

Edited November 5, 201213 yr by AGX-17

Statistics derived dialogue options should sometimes offer a reward. Like OE folks have said before, don't make it a no-brainer. But sometimes, you just have to hand out rewards to that character who pumped his diplomacy skill so his skill points weren't wasted.

Pretty much this...

I would like to see statistics derived dialogue sometimes end badly for the speaker. If talking "over the heads" of "stupid" NPCs, maybe they feel insulted and attack the speaker.