Hi

I was thinking about persuation in PE. I must say that original type of class based persuation for NWN was for me iritating. I personaly like the system input in Alpha-Protocol or DA-Orings (but i prefer Alpha-Protocol)

 

And what about you ?

Edited February 27, 201313 yr by Ulquiorra

I would like class based speech options as well just not as you described where the class should determine what sort of dialogue skills you can level up. For example if you're a druid with low speech I think your class knowledge that makes you a druid should allow for some unique dialogue options/persuades. The same thing can be applied to character race. Perhaps an elf beggar would normally charge for info but if another elf spoke to them they'd have an option to play on their shared heritage and get the information for free.

What I do not want to see however is 3-4 dialogue related skills. I much prefer fallout's method of just having speech which applies to everything rather than dividing it up into a ton of subcategories.

I'd rather not see any speech skills. There should be things that affect speech, like if I'm really strong or a specific class or race, or if I learned certain things that give me different speech options, but no skills that directly affect speech. I really dislike the system where if I pass a speech check, it's just an "I win" button. Dialogue should be more mysterious than that and if I'm going to say something to make someone do something I want, I'd rather it to be because I as the player picked some intelligent things to say, not just that I picked the one dialogue choice with [speech] next to it, indicating it is the optimal choice.

I don't think a specific "speech" skill is the best way. More like all skills based where you could persuade someone that he has cancer because your "doctor" skill is high, or because you are a healing priest OR because you are good and you know he/she/it has cancer, though that would prolly also require CHA check. 

 

AP has a very specific dialogue system and though I love it dearly, I really don't think it would go well with PE. It was also i no way related too the system used in DA:O. Additionally, it was based based a lot on reputation and dossier intel.

 

By the way, the word is "diplomacy". Won't go to the poll...

 

Didn't vote, too specific.

AP has a very specific dialogue system and though I love it dearly, I really don't think it would go well with PE. It was also i no way related too the system used in DA:O. Additionally, it was based based a lot on reputation and dossier intel.

 

And "Reputation" you gain or lose by at least three difrent opitons "Agrassive", "polite" and "profesional" and you have time limit. In my opinion it's better to ad some type of skill based system like in DA-O or VTMB or even Fallout new vegas .. but if devs decide to add alpha-protocol based system that also good.

 

The only thing you had in alpha protocol is time limit with in IE whoud not be the best way ...

 

Skill based for every class in my opinion is the best ... also if they don't putt persuation skill at all whon't be a problem ... but the wors possible in my opinion it to putt persiation skill to Charisma check or class check (not all classes will need high charisma) And it's giving some classes advantages is role play way ...

 

So in my opinion every class shoud have possibilyti to learn this skill or make or classes whout it becouse it's giving advantage to others. For example in NWN Warrior and Mages have no conversation skill but paladins, driuids, and even monks have ... so basiacly playing a monk is better then warrior in that game becouse you gain more gold, you can persuade someone and even gain more "Main plot" related informations witch in my oponion is the biggest disadvantage ...

I want to play like hammer.

Whatever happens, please just don't make the persuasion/dialog system be class/alignment restricted. I absolutely hate that in video games as it too easily kills a character possibility before it's born. Just because I'm a claymore wielding warrior I'm not allowed to be a master diplomat either? Or because I'm an evil dastard I can't also be charming, I'm forced to be intimidating?

Vampire Bloodlines or Arcanum style, in the latter you could advance in reasonable pace and it also gave youpermanent passive bonuses(convince differently aligned NPC to joining you), also for instance persuation in Arcanum even with appropriate skill could  be tricky and not work out if one was no carefull in his conversation, additional lines was quite subtle and not all to obvious. While I love PS:T it's strict stat based rules for persuative dialogue was thanks to that restrictive for character builds. Anyway Im looking forward how it will be handled in P:E.

Pretty sure they've already said that there won't be any manner of "persuasion" skills in the game, which is just fine by me.

I for one would have liked to see conversational skills because they're not as artificial as people make them out to be.

 

1) Just because you're intelligent and charismatic (which in many systems can only mean good looking) you're not necessarily a grand rhetorist

 

2) You can be very diplomatic but have no idea how to threaten someone convincingly

 

but mostly

 

3) When I raise my conversational skills I do so purposefully (= I try to become i.e. more threatening). When I raise my strength, I probably do so with combat/ carrying capacity in mind, not threatening. That is at best an afterthought. Chances are that most of our fighters in P:E will have a high strength, so there's always someone around to unlock that [threaten] option.

In general, I like skills that make me think about and make decisions about the conversation I'm having and that give the feeling that I have multiple pathways through a conversation.  What I don't like as much are using skills to make conversational I-win options.

 

Action Prologue (For the TLDR Crowd)

Skills shouldn't always be effective even if your skill is high enough. I like when skills are decisions points.  Take a New Vegas type setting.  Imagine you run into someone that blames scientists for any nuclear apocalypse and is generally suspicious of all scientists.  Trying to convince such a person of the wisdom of a certain course of action with your science skill should fail--no matter how strong your science is. 

 

Prologue is over.  Time for the full post, starting with some comments on other games.

 

Mass Effect

There were a number of things I didn't like about the persuasion in Mass Effect's conversations (even though I still liked a lot of the dialogue overall).  The paragon/renegade options were basically I-win buttons.  And while the details changed in ME3, for parts 1 and 2 particularly, the game sort of encouraged you to play one "morality" which ended up effectively taking away choices and thought during conversation.  Also, I didn't much care for how conversation skills were mixed with action skills.  If you could choose to skip combat with diplomacy, maybe having the skills rely on spent points from a shared point pool makes sense.  In general though, I like my combat and non-combat skills and point spending separated.
 

Fallout: New Vegas

This was one of my favorite conversation systems.  It's very cool to be able to use your medicine skill in conversation or to use science to be more convincing to a scientist.  Generally, it's cool to come up with a character concept, execute it in skill point distribution and have characters react to that in dialogue and give you multiple paths to "victory" (or defeat) in dialogue.

 

Icewind Dale

So I ran into a problem in this game.  I had this high INT mage at the back of the party.  My low INT dwarf warrior or low INT human paladin (at the front of the party) were forever bumping into people and being the lead character in conversations.  I always wanted my mage to sort of step in front of them and handle the talking.  It would have been cool to designate a leader that would handle conversations regardless of what slot you fill in the party.

 

Dragon Age: Origins

One of my favorite side quests in Origins was Crime Wave, http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Crime_Wave This was another case where non-combat skills gave you multiple paths.  Use herbalism to convince someone she's sick or use pickpocketing while conversing. 

 

General Comments and Examples

It would be cool if the skills could fail. (It's a given that they'll often work.)  I want skills to be provide decisions points in conversation.  Take a New Vegas type setting.  Imagine you run into someone that blames scientists for any nuclear apocalypse and is generally suspicious of all scientists.  Trying to convince such a person of the wisdom of a certain course of action with your science skill should fail. 

 

And I think it make sense to use class skills in conversation assuming the class has enough flavor to justify it.  For example, in the Dragon Age setting you have Templars (which have anti-mage abilities and are basically mage jailers) and mages that have reason to come into verbal conflict from time to time.  It would make sense for an intimidate option from a Templar to carry extra weight when used on a more submissive mage but perhaps backfire and provoke violence when used on a humiliated and strong-willed mage.  And if a mage tried to use blood magic as a persuade or mind control in a conversation, maybe it's less effective on a templar because of their higher magic resistance.

 

Attributes and Persuasion

If attributes are to contribute to success and failure of conversation I'd rather multiple attributes affect it.  Some are persuaded by intelligence, others by your displayed perceptiveness while others might care about charisma (presence, confidence).  And so different attributes would mean varying degrees of persuasiveness with different types of people.

 

Background Knowledge

I really liked some of what they're trying to do in Wasteland 2.  What I liked about their recent update is how your characters bring knowledge to a conversation, which can inform topics you can bring up.  And the order you raise topics can matter.  So you've done a quest or found something before hand and it gives you a different key word to deploy.  In a game like PE, maybe your experiences in game can also load up what branches your dialogue tree has.

Edited February 27, 201313 yr by Giltspur

Pretty sure they've already said that there won't be any manner of "persuasion" skills in the game, which is just fine by me.

 

  There really won't be any!? Where was this stated? It seems so unlikely, unnatural almost, for Obsidian devs, to throw away this gameplay feature completely, considering that( at least in my eyes ) this was their most prominent and stronest discipline, which made me fall in for their titular classics. I can't believe it.

There really won't be any!? Where was this stated? It seems so

unlikely, unnatural almost, for Obsidian devs, to throw away this

gameplay feature completely, considering that( at least in my eyes )

this was their most prominent and stronest discipline, which made me

fall in for their titular classics. I can't believe it.

What I think they said was: there will be all the skills, but instead of acting as "win" buttons, these skills will help player to make a better choice in dialogue by gathering more information from NPC.

Which is't exactly great either, because savescumming does the same and cheaper.

Edited February 27, 201313 yr by Shadenuat

 

Pretty sure they've already said that there won't be any manner of "persuasion" skills in the game, which is just fine by me.

 

Where was this stated?

Between the Kickstarter updates, Formspring, interviews, and developer comments on two separate forums, I have no god damn idea where exactly I read/heard that. And of course, they could have changed their minds thrice over since then. That's just the last thing I heard on the topic.

Edited February 27, 201313 yr by Tamerlane

Sawyer himself said in a topic in the forum here they don't plan on implementing conversational skills. I think he also said that instead attributes will have an effect on dialogue.

The mass effect 1 system of skill based persuade/intimidate checks was really annoying for me. I would always regret taking those skills whenever i needed a combat skill i didn't have yet. The fact is, those skills were so necessary that I would get them every time. If someone is going to get them every time, why have them at all? If they're mandatory to get a good game, why not just bake them into the character? But I don't want a generic 'persuade' or 'intimidate that everyone gets. That's dull and uninteresting.

 

I would prefer a class based option, where if I was a priest, for example, I would get a response option that reflected my profession, and perhaps that response option would vary depending upon my alignment. Certain encounters would provoke better reactions from some classes than others, but with many many conversations in the game, there ought to be sufficient opportunities for all classes to get interesting dialog options.

@Tamerlane - Could this be it?

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62924-sawyerism-distilled-an-interview-with-josh-sawyer-at-iron-tower-studio/page-7?do=findComment&comment=1288681

 

Just a reminder: Icewind Dale II was the only Infinity Engine game to have a dialogue skill (three, in fact). BG, BG2, IWD, and PS:T and related expansions all used ability scores and other more-or-less fixed character attributes like class and race. IMO, if you're going to have stat-based unlocks, I'd rather do that type of unlocking because it's often easier/more sensible to spread the checks out more evenly.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62924-sawyerism-distilled-an-interview-with-josh-sawyer-at-iron-tower-studio/page-6?do=findComment&comment=1288404

 

 

Speech as a skill is the thing that I think produces the most quasi-/metagaming. Attribute/ability score checks tend to not produce the same problem since you can often be more egalitarian about what attributes are checked and how often. With a Speech skill (or equivalent), its whole raison d'être is to gain advantage in conversation. That's not true even for stats like Charisma or Intelligence in D&D.

 

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by SqueakyCat

  My that's a relief, now all there is left is just wait for a finished game to behold, final form. Still tho, as I stated somewhere before, stat checks can be tricky, and difficult for perfectionist players like myself, who's ultimate satisfaction lies in completing every dialogue in the best possible way with required stats. So for instance PS:T shrunk for me to calculating TNO's progress level to level so I won't miss a single extra bit of dialogue and match up with stat checks (thank goodness for tattoos million times, also two certain spells) while in the same time managing current class to be of at least same quality as that of companion's. Or maybe I was just way too crazier about this stuff back then  

  Anyway, thank you guys for answers. 

Ignoring the fact that "diplomation" is not a word (no, Esperanto is not a real language and the rest of the post is broken/poor English so it's clear that the intent was not to use Esperanto,) there's no reason not to have every option. Aside from the philistines who want there to be no communication skills in the game and have it play like a JRPG with a railroad plot and dialogue options restricted to "No." "But thou must!" "No." "But thou must!" "No." "But thou must!" "No." "But thou must!" "No." "But thou must!" "Yes."

Um. Given that PE received about half of its money from Europeans, I'd expect that a good chunk of posters are not native English speakers. And you present a bizarre false dichotomy of either conversation-specific skills or railroaded dialogue.

The funny thing is that i thought that "Diplomation" is and english word. And my first is polish not esperanto hahaha ...

 

But still at this moment i can't edit main post and still everybody understander that esperanto hahaha