How to remake friends and influence people

[Iron_JG]

Hey all,

 

New to the forums, know this has probably come up before, thought I'd get some fresh discussion going, what the hell...

 

How dynamic -- able to grow/change in their world views and behavior patterns -- should PE party members be? I've always enjoyed party members that really engage with the player, that try to understand/challenge their beliefs. Subsequently, I've always enjoyed knowing the player can significantly influence his/her companions. I think BG2 and DA:O had some really good examples of these, and kept personality changes as logical consequences of in-game choices and dialogue, rather than just min/maxing influence numbers.

 

So, how do you want influencing party members handled? My thoughts:

 

-- No quantified influence metrics. Make influence attempts depend entirely on dialogue choices/in-game actions. Gifts should be extremely limited. Players otherwise feel encouraged to roleplay inconsistently to chase after a high score. (Alternatively, players might still roleplay a diplomatic character that talks out of both sides of their mouth to keep the peace, but they don't need special incentive for that.)

 

-- The player should be able to influence every long-term party member in some way. The changes can vary in significance/obviousness, but they should be there. I'm not arguing we should be able to redeem/corrupt every party member, but I think the hallmark of a meaningful relationship with a character is that it alters their behavior/outlook. With time and commitment, you might help a 'mercenary' companion find a purpose to devote themselves to, or reduce/reinforce some prejudice a closed-minded companion has, etc.

 

-- Influence should feel like it works both ways. Party members should try to guide/manipulate the player, and push back if there's a contest of opposing viewpoints.

 

-- The bigger the change to a party member, the more work and careful responses it should take. Generally speaking, if you really get to know someone, and can really build trust, you can make them veer far off their course. I liked how you could redeem Viconia, for instance, but keep in mind in took a LOT of time, and you had to show the right mix of strength and sensitivity.

 

-- Party members should have breaking points, and turn against the player and other companions/NPCs if they do things unacceptable to them.

 

-- Social skills should help influence party members without being an I-Win button. Persuasion, and even self-serving rationalization, should increase companions' tolerance for certain actions. For practicality's sake, though, it probably shouldn't play a role in pivotal moments in the companions' personal evolution. That tends to encourage meta-game munchkin-ness: "In the next room I can get the death knight to renounce his heathen god. Better switch out to my Fez of Convincing-ness, so I won't fail the check."

 

-- Any special abilities or in-game rewards you get for influencing a party member, including items or stat buffs for them, should be limited or mostly for flavor, again to discourage meta-gaming.

 

Lastly, bonus points if companions can influence each other as well, and the player can intervene or not as they choose.

 

Thoughts?

Edited June 6, 2013 by Iron_JG

[Sacred_Path]

I second the notion that players should have to grovel, beg, and bribe their AI controlled party members. I personally would simply use the non-AI controlled characters from the Adventurer's Hall, but people asking for interactivity should have their hands full at all times.

[eschaton]

I'd like RPGs to break out "like" and "respect" and tie them to different things.  Most games go wrong because they equate the two.

 

As I see it, liking should be mostly tied to dialogue options, which leads to further knowledge of the character.  Ultimately, it may lead to romance, but it's mostly just a roleplay issue.

 

In contrast, respect is important in combat as well, as it can boost or sap morale.  Respect is built by your party seeing you take on tough challenges, and by you making decisions your NPCs do not find weak or immoral.  

 

Doing it this way, it's possible to have party members who personally hate your guts, but trust you to the grave as a leader.  Or have someone in your party fighting to get into your pants, but who really doesn't respect your authority and is constantly backtalking to you.  

[Lephys]

A nice set of points, I think. One thought I had is that the typical gifts system we see in a lot of RPGs would probably work a lot better as mainly a set of actions/choices than one of simply, physical goods. In fact, I think the only time gift-giving hasn't been a little silly and has seemed to fit well is when it is an extremely personal gift that you had to go out of your way to obtain, and/or that you're having to sacrifice the worth of (to yourself) by giving it away rather than keeping it. So, really, the only reason the physical thing was important at all was because of the gesture of giving THAT to THAT person, under THOSE circumstances.

 

I think that type of thing should really always be something to weigh out. I mean, if there's no benefit to NOT-giving someone something, then why NOT boost your party's approval of yourself for (essentially) free? Maybe you, the player, personally like the Rogue in the party, and you decide that, against your normal judgement of it being "wrong," you're going to actually pilfer some valuables from a stash that TECHNICALLY belongs to someone, but you're recovering from bandits, anyway, so there's "no telling" what was already missing (sold/traded by the bandits before you got there) and what wasn't. So, even though that maybe stretches your normal moral code on things, and you now run the risk of being caught in a lie, you're placing the interests of the Rogue in front of your own.

 

That's 17 times better than any "Hey dude, here's a golden statue," any day.

 

Having said that, I think your influence over the other characters should really stem more from actions than from words, in general. I think a lot of games (not necessarily without reason; limited resources, technology, etc.) tend to lean a little too far towards sort of simplifying choices to mere words. You know? "Oh, I totally care about you!". I'd rather see someone say "Hmm... if you say so," and now keep a closer eye on whether or not I prove that I actually consider their well-being, than "Really? GREAT! I now hold it as absolute truth that you care about me, because you didn't say you didn't care about me! 8D!"

 

Hell, I'd be interested in seeing the same thing even if you say "Pssh... I'm just here to get the job done. If you weren't a useful tool in accomplishing that task, I wouldn't even be talking to you right now." You know... a wary eye, and maybe on down the line, it turns out you do actually place personal value on that companion.

 

In a word? Skepticism. Er... in a couple of words: reasonable skepticism. Or... I'm gonna call it Influence Inertia. If someone doesn't trust you, and you try to suddenly push them into the Trust corner, they should resist at first. It should take more effort to get them going than it does to keep them going once they're going. Then, it should be even harder to stop abruptly and pull them back away from the corner, since they're still moving forward.

 

You hear that, Obsidian? Influence Inertia. You can totally use that for free. I won't even demand royalties.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Lephys

[Iron_JG]

Skepticism/inertia should be a part of any attempt to influence someone, though some characters should be more naive than others. I'm kind of philosophical, so I always like the debate over motivations and consequences of actions. Like in DAO, I always wished I could have argued with Morrigan more, because there often ways to justify 'good' actions as coinciding with self-interest, but the game wouldn't let you square the circle very often. I suppose the mix of actions/words also needs to vary between characters. A bard or a mage might be more likely to buy into your explanations for actions, whereas a more simple fighter or ranger might care more about actions.

 

As to respect vs. likeability, I think most games gloss over the 'respect' variable by virtue of the player progressing in the main story, and defeating key enemies. To some extent, that's reasonable, but it benefits from nuance like everything else does. I understand reputation plays a role in PE, so I suppose respect could be handled that way. In BG2, of course, good or evil party members would leave the party if your reputation became too extreme. That's still not a very nuanced handling of the two, per se, and I'd love to see something even more refined. I suppose it's a question of how much writing the team plans to do. Perhaps not having the burden of heavily animated conversations and full voice acting will free them up for that nuance. I hope so. It'd be nice for each character to have multiple development paths -- usually you just see two, if any.

 

Additional thought: it would be cool, and make sense, for romances to offer unique possibilities for influencing party members. Not that romance would guarantee you'd succeed at the change, but that it would open up the chance. Going back to Viconia, you still had to manage your responses properly even in the romance to pull off her conversion.

[Giantevilhead]

The problem with making character interactions better is that the number of choices and consequences can increase exponentially.

 

For example, the consistency with which you act or treat people should be important. If you're a ruthless murderer one day and an altruistic saint the next day, your companion should think that you're insane. If you're honest most of the time then your companions should fall more easily for your lies but if you lie a lot then your companions should be more wary of what you say.

 

There are also little things like the nuances of your interactions. Are you sarcastic, serious, logical, emotional, terse, long winded, simple, eloquent, detail oriented, absent minded, etc.? All of which may interact or conflict with NPC's.

[Nonek]

In many ways I don't want to change the NPC's. Take Boone in New Vegas, nothing you say or do will change the essence of who he is. The man is forever looking through his scope at the women and children streaming out of Bitter Springs and his pregnant wife, nothing the player says or does can change that. All you can do is show him a different way of coping with it, and make him aware that he is not so alone as he thought.

[eschaton]

One other thing I'd also like to see is the NPCs interact with each other more.

 

I don't mean just, for example, two incompatible NPCs getting into fights.  Or maybe hints of a romance going on within the group.  

 

Say, for example, you have one competent, but fairly weak-willed follower, who is young and doesn't know much of the ways of the world.  If you take on an older, honorable grizzled veteran, he'll look up to said character, and begin modeling his behavior on him.  But if you have a tail-chasing, self-centered rogue as a follower, the same character may take a much darker turn.  

 

I think this helps in terms of immersion, because it means the NPCs are not static personalities only affected by the actions of the player.  They're reacting to one another, and changing all the while.  

[Lephys]

In many ways I don't want to change the NPC's. Take Boone in New Vegas, nothing you say or do will change the essence of who he is. The man is forever looking through his scope at the women and children streaming out of Bitter Springs and his pregnant wife, nothing the player says or does can change that. All you can do is show him a different way of coping with it, and make him aware that he is not so alone as he thought.

It's really just a broader idea of change, if you think about it. Before, he wasn't coping with it as well, and now he is, thanks to you.

 

I like to think that people's essences are like a symphony, with several different sections playing different pieces in parallel. You usually don't ever actually add or subtract an entire section from the symphony. Rather, you hold a microphone closer to one section or move one farther away from another. You just change a factor that that person's already dealing with.

 

You may not consider doughnuts worth their price, for example. So, maybe, alone, you'll NEVER procure any doughnuts. However, if I come up to you, and say "Hey, here's some free doughnuts," you might accept them. Why? Because the factors are different. You were weighing the price of doughnuts and effort involved in getting them against your personal value for having doughnuts, and the value did not win out, so you decided towards no-doughnuts. But, now that I've altered the factors, "simply reach out and take some doughnuts" doesn't seem like too much trouble anymore, and you'll take them.

 

Obviously, if another factor were introduced (because, say, you're a different person), you might be allergic to doughnuts, or simply hate them. At that point, my elimination of the cost of getting doughnuts will have little-to-no effect. However, in any of the situations, you're still the one making the decision based on your own throught processes. I'm not changing your like or dislike of doughnuts, or changing the way in which you CONSIDER the choice. I'm simply providing you with external factors/alterations you didn't previously have (such as a way to get free doughnuts, instantly).

 

That's the other thing that's lacking in a lot of games. Complexity of psyche. And I know it's a lot of work to artificially emulate with some text and models and animations, but it's not impossible. But, people should almost ALWAYS have some amount of consideration for multiple aspects of a choice. Even with people who are cult-level brainwashed to think a certain way with every fiber of their being should have SOMETHING that will cause them to question their own decisions and actions and, at the very least, reconsider things. You know, "I think this guy's an invulnerable god, but he just tripped and skinned his knee on the cave floor, and I just saw him bleed." That sort of thing. We're not robots, and no matter how stubborn we can be, we don't actually stop evaluating sensory input at any point. We just heavily ignore it sometimes, because of extreme Mental Inertia. 8P

 

 

For example, the consistency with which you act or treat people should be important. If you're a ruthless murderer one day and an altruistic saint the next day, your companion should think that you're insane. If you're honest most of the time then your companions should fall more easily for your lies but if you lie a lot then your companions should be more wary of what you say.

Exactly, 8D. I would just like to add that, for all not-coincidentally-extremely-naive people, there should be that same sort of "waryness" (for lack of a better word) to a decision either way (that you're some super honest person, or that you're a huge liar). We defaultly know that we can't necessarily trust people until we see evidence otherwise, but we also know that people are potentially capable of being trusted.

 

In a way, I'd kind of like to see most of the companions sort of "test" you in little ways. Sort of a probationary period to go from "okay, obviously the risk of this person screwing me over at the moment is not as big of a worry as the risk of us all dying if I don't travel with someone out of here right now" to "Hey, I kinda feel comfortable with this person, and I believe I understand some of their motivations and perspectives on things."

[Pipyui]

I actually agree with everying from the OP, but would reiterate:

 

I'd like RPGs to break out "like" and "respect" and tie them to different things.

Having said that, I think your influence over the other characters should really stem more from actions than from words, in general. I think a lot of games (not necessarily without reason; limited resources, technology, etc.) tend to lean a little too far towards sort of simplifying choices to mere words. You know? "Oh, I totally care about you!". I'd rather see someone say "Hmm... if you say so," and now keep a closer eye on whether or not I prove that I actually consider their well-being, than "Really? GREAT! I now hold it as absolute truth that you care about me, because you didn't say you didn't care about me! 8D!"

and

 

One other thing I'd also like to see is the NPCs interact with each other more.

 

To elaborate on this last point, I think it's important that NPCs and your companions can maybe interact and rely on one another rather than take every problem straight to you like a child trying to get help from their parent.  I don't want every concern of every companion to come to me like:

"Glorious Leader!  I'm having trouble finding spirituality in this cold and merciless world!  Please advise!"

 

Now maybe this guy doesn't respect the monk as well as you, or finds him less charismatic, but if I have no reason to suspect this, wouldn't it be reasonable for some of this guy's questions to find direction towards the monk?  Maybe I can go out of my way to influence him should I choose, but I don't think I should just be everyones' immediate go-to guy/gal.

 

How about: "Hey, I'm going out with our assassin to kill my wicked step-mother.  Cool with you?" and maybe you say "NO!", in which case she replies either "You're not my mother either!" and stomps out, or accepts your decision like a good trained slave dedicated companion.  These people clearly have a relationship and some level of respect for each other that doesn't revolve entirely around your guidance or your approval, though they may seek and/or respect it in any case.

 

tl;dr:  I'm not the only consious being that can help solve your problems!

Edited June 7, 2013 by Pipyui

[Lephys]

tl;dr:  I'm not the only consious being that can help solve your problems!

This isn't something I'm advocating heavily from the get-go, because it would be iffy at best (without testing), but it immediately seems like it at least has the potential to work (or something similar):

 

What if you had some kind of "You seem to have something on your mind" or "Do you have a problem with someone?" option, pretty much always available to you, when talking to companions? Before you freak out, this wouldn't actually let you know that there WAS a problem. So, if you simply think "well, I'll just click that every time I talk to them, to see if anything's the matter," they would actually just get progressively more annoyed with you, to the point of not even wanting to talk about a problem when there WAS one.

 

In less-specific terms... what if it was mostly up to you to discover THEN address (if you so choose AND external factors allow) problems/conflicts between companions? You know, instead of you always being this gravity well, as Pipyui said, with 2 companions going all "Oh, hey there! Yeah, we just HAPPENED to walk over here to you to have this big argument about something, and to ask you who's your favorite. No pressure, u_u".

[Pipyui]

Sorry, that was something of the impression that I was trying to impart, but got lost in the rambling.   I don't want my companions to ignore me entirely, and I'd like the option to potentially converse or intervene in an issue should I choose, but I don't want to be the go-to guy for every single problem, especially if I'm not the right tool for it.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Pipyui

[Lephys]

^ Yeah, sorry. I wasn't meaning to suggest you didn't want any character interaction at all. I just wanted to address that particular situation, as it occurred to me after reading what you'd said.

[Iron_JG]

To follow up on the last few posts, I think it's important that the player, in a majority of cases, has to choose whether to try to intervene in a companion's issues or concerns. Most adventurers, it stands to reason, are more or less strong and independent people, or can at least offer the appearance. Exceptions can and should exist, depending on character type (Aerie, for instance) or extreme circumstances (Anomen or Keldorn and their crisis of faith sidequests, maybe). But I think part of creating believable characters is making the player earn access to their inner thoughts and true motives. I've known people I thought were good leaders, but that didn't automatically mean I wanted to spill my guts to them or ask them to help with problems outside their purview.

 

But, for game play's sake, I'd like the player to have the potential, at least, to gain unique insight/influence with companions. I tend to think no one's beyond reaching, in some way, and, besides, it creates replayability to boot.

[mcmanusaur]

NPC-NPC interactions are of utmost importance to me, so I echo what eschaton and Pipyui have said. A setting that completely revolves around my character feels so artificial and shallow, and while interactive settings are great, settings that are dynamic even before you bring the players' actions into the mix are even better.

[AGX-17]

-- No quantified influence metrics. Make influence attempts depend entirely on dialogue choices/in-game actions. Gifts should be extremely limited. Players otherwise feel encouraged to roleplay inconsistently to chase after a high score. (Alternatively, players might still roleplay a diplomatic character that talks out of both sides of their mouth to keep the peace, but they don't need special incentive for that.)

If it's not quantified then how can it exist in a mathematical logic-based system (a computer game)? If it's not quantified then no influence will exist.

 

That said, I don't even know where this "players feel encouraged to roleplay inconsistently to chase after a high score" thing is coming from. Isn't that your own experience/problem? I never go into a game intending to play a certain type of character but always fail because I'm too ADD or OCD to avoid trying to get the "high score" in morality or reputation or what-have-you like a game completionist who can't live with anything below 100% on the GTA stats screen. It's essentially a given that you can't be everybody's best friend in this game, which I assume is what you mean by "high score" in this context.

 

Secondly, if the story or quest is designed in such a way that the player character receives a practical reward for successful persuasion, then that's how it should be. Metagamers are going to metagame no matter what kind of petty obstacles you suggest should be put there to impede them. It's a game. It's less believable to suggest that persuasion should have no tangible, practical value to the player. That makes it utterly pointless as a game mechanic. If the only thing persuasion results in is either failure or "flavor" text/useless items/etc. why bother in the first place? Real people in the real world constantly attempt to influence others for material gain, why should that be different in game? How is it less believable in the face of reality?

Edited June 8, 2013 by AGX-17

[Pipyui]

Well, what I think he meant was that making a quantified disposition bar visual to the player is kinda silly.  If my companions like or don't like me, I should be observant enough to recognize this through my own interactions with them.  It's not rocket science.  And if I don't interact with them at any significant level, it would be fair to say that I don't understand them well.  I don't need nor deserve a bar telling me how much somebody likes/respects me that I can watch like a hawk as I throw meaningless gifts at my party.

 

He meant* that interpersonal relationships should be abstract, not discrete gauges visible to the player.

 

*Far be it for me to say what other people mean.

[yaminsoul]

I too heartly second having NPC-NPC conversations, rivalries, love affairs, ect ect that don't resolve around the main character. I would also, if it is possible, would if NPC's aren't with the main party (ala DA:0) style, they actually go do something, perhaps even something productive.   

[Iron_JG]

 

-- No quantified influence metrics. Make influence attempts depend entirely on dialogue choices/in-game actions. Gifts should be extremely limited. Players otherwise feel encouraged to roleplay inconsistently to chase after a high score. (Alternatively, players might still roleplay a diplomatic character that talks out of both sides of their mouth to keep the peace, but they don't need special incentive for that.)

If it's not quantified then how can it exist in a mathematical logic-based system (a computer game)? If it's not quantified then no influence will exist.

 

That said, I don't even know where this "players feel encouraged to roleplay inconsistently to chase after a high score" thing is coming from. Isn't that your own experience/problem? I never go into a game intending to play a certain type of character but always fail because I'm too ADD or OCD to avoid trying to get the "high score" in morality or reputation or what-have-you like a game completionist who can't live with anything below 100% on the GTA stats screen. It's essentially a given that you can't be everybody's best friend in this game, which I assume is what you mean by "high score" in this context.

 

Secondly, if the story or quest is designed in such a way that the player character receives a practical reward for successful persuasion, then that's how it should be. Metagamers are going to metagame no matter what kind of petty obstacles you suggest should be put there to impede them. It's a game. It's less believable to suggest that persuasion should have no tangible, practical value to the player. That makes it utterly pointless as a game mechanic. If the only thing persuasion results in is either failure or "flavor" text/useless items/etc. why bother in the first place? Real people in the real world constantly attempt to influence others for material gain, why should that be different in game? How is it less believable in the face of reality?

 

 

I think it was pretty obvious I was talking about telegraphing those outcomes to the player, and, the computer wouldn't necessarily need numbers, just instructions to check certain conversation and event outcomes. But that's playing semantics. For reference, DA and DA2 are what inform my thinking on this, as you might imagine.

 

I think not broadcasting influence numbers allows more ambiguity to percolate in NPC relationships. A verbal response doesn't have to telegraph whether someone approves or disapproves of an action, and that unknown factor makes it less predictable to the player where their relationship with a party member is going. Broadcasting the score, in every game I've encountered, gives incontrovertible proof of what a character likes or dislikes. I think it's unrealistic to expect that information to not, even indirectly, influence the player.

 

There are also the issues of rigid metrics oversimplifying a party member's attitude -- the distinctions between respect and affection others have mentioned, or friendship/rivalry. It can also create strange equivalencies. Minor approvals/disapprovals can add up and equate to major turning points in characters' relationship, which can be unrealistic. A person who causes minor irritants but comes through when it counts will achieve loyalty more than someone who does the small stuff but abandons people when hardship emerges. A simple point system would not distinguish between -- it simply checks the bottom line number. Again, I think not assigning rigid points allows designers to focus on the key things that should influence a party member, rather than having to fit responses/actions neatly on X and/or Y axes for relationships. Sure, you can tweak the numbers so small things can't outweigh the big things, but, at that point, what is designing the point system even accomplishing? It just renders some actions irrelevant in considering an outcome, which puts the designer right back where I'm recommending they start.

 

Admittedly, whether influence is overtly quantified or not, players will eventually game the system. I know that. But I think preserving some mystery in the first few playthroughs, or trying to, makes the player more likely to encounter surprises. Hopefully this makes them replay and enjoy the game more. 

 

As to suggestions some players are too ADD or OCD to resist getting high scores in NPC relationships, I think the metrics put most players in the middle, with some minor meta-gaming. But the issue isn't whether, or how much, the incentives of influence metrics affect player choice. My contention is it's inappropriate/undesirable in the first place. If someone offers you a dollar to take candy from a baby, it's unlikely you'll accept the offer. But it is still inappropriate for the incentive to have even been made.

 

As to your second point, I didn't say persuasion shouldn't play a role in influencing party members, and specifically addressed it later in my post. My recommendation was trying to balance the efficacy of persuasion *skills*, so they had an impact but were not an I-Win button, or the obviously superior outcome in all cases. It's generally true that a charismatic/persuasive person should be able to get more out of people than the alternative, up to and including fanatical, self-sacrificing devotion. But I think it has to be balanced for game-play purposes. Perhaps a better way to look at it is that the player character would always have a minimum threshold of persuasiveness, represented by more-or-less default dialogue choices. I hope you respect I'm searching for a balance, but evaluating if it's the right balance quickly becomes subjective.

[Archmage Silver]

I'd like RPGs to break out "like" and "respect" and tie them to different things.  Most games go wrong because they equate the two.

 

As I see it, liking should be mostly tied to dialogue options, which leads to further knowledge of the character.  Ultimately, it may lead to romance, but it's mostly just a roleplay issue.

 

In contrast, respect is important in combat as well, as it can boost or sap morale.  Respect is built by your party seeing you take on tough challenges, and by you making decisions your NPCs do not find weak or immoral.  

 

Doing it this way, it's possible to have party members who personally hate your guts, but trust you to the grave as a leader.  Or have someone in your party fighting to get into your pants, but who really doesn't respect your authority and is constantly backtalking to you.  

One other thing I'd also like to see is the NPCs interact with each other more.

 

I don't mean just, for example, two incompatible NPCs getting into fights.  Or maybe hints of a romance going on within the group.  

 

Say, for example, you have one competent, but fairly weak-willed follower, who is young and doesn't know much of the ways of the world.  If you take on an older, honorable grizzled veteran, he'll look up to said character, and begin modeling his behavior on him.  But if you have a tail-chasing, self-centered rogue as a follower, the same character may take a much darker turn.  

 

I think this helps in terms of immersion, because it means the NPCs are not static personalities only affected by the actions of the player.  They're reacting to one another, and changing all the while.  

 

+1 here. These ideas are something I've had in mind as well, especially the separation of various concepts regarding the NPCs, e.g. like/dislike, respect/disrespect and trust/mistrust. They should be separate from each other and rely on different variables - e.g. a conversation between CHARNAME and NPC1 that results in a +3 modifier for like doesn't necessarily affect respect or trust at all, depending on the topic and outcome of the aforementioned conversation.

[mcmanusaur]

Personally, while I agree with pretty much everything else mentioned here, I'm a bit hesitant on the liking/disliking vs. respect distinction. To me, it seems like one small step away from Fable II's retarded system of having like three bars to worry about for every NPC (I can't even remember what the third variable was), and since liking/disliking is already a vague enough abstraction I'm not sure how adding another abstraction contributes to the game. In my view, a single bar does a good enough job of describing how an NPC feels toward my character, and any further nuances can arise from either my character's reputation (one NPC automatically respects characters with certain levels of fame, and another dislikes all evil characters) or the NPC's personality (even when a certain NPC "likes" you the most you get is consistently their begrudging respect, or maybe a different NPC consistently acts respectfully to those who he or she dislikes). But for the relationship between my character and that NPC, one variable does the trick for the most part (if I had to choose a worthwhile second variable it would probably be platonic vs. romantic interest, and meh...). Psychologically, it's true enough that you tend to respect and trust the people who you like, so I'm honestly not sure why it needs to be more complicated than that; maybe I'm too busy roleplaying my own character to try to micromanage other characters' emotions.

Edited June 10, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Archmage Silver]

Personally, while I agree with pretty much everything else mentioned here, I'm a bit hesitant on the liking/disliking vs. respect distinction. To me, it seems like one small step away from Fable II's retarded system of having like three bars to worry about for every NPC (I can't even remember what the third variable was), and since liking/disliking is already a vague enough abstraction I'm not sure how adding another abstraction contributes to the game. In my view, a single bar does a good enough job of describing how an NPC feels toward my character, and any further nuances can arise from either my character's reputation (one NPC automatically respects characters with certain levels of fame, and another dislikes all evil characters) or the NPC's personality (even when a certain NPC "likes" you the most you get is consistently their begrudging respect, or maybe a different NPC consistently acts respectfully to those who he or she dislikes). But for the relationship between my character and that NPC, one variable does the trick for the most part (if I had to choose a worthwhile second variable it would probably be platonic vs. romantic interest, and meh...). Psychologically, it's true enough that you tend to respect and trust the people who you like, so I'm honestly not sure why it needs to be more complicated than that; maybe I'm too busy roleplaying my own character to try to micromanage other characters' emotions.

I think it could work "under the hood", i.e. you'd only have one bar to worry about, which would have a value calculated from all the different aspects using, say, a weighted mean.

 

Edit: The game could still check individual variable values for conversations, but the player could stick to watching the "influence meter" to determine if an NPC is going to leave soon or not. This is obviously not a perfect solution by any means, but I'm sure it could be improved upon.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Archmage Silver

[Lephys]

^ True. McManusaur brings up a good point, though. With a reputation system in place already, and assuming it's going to be sufficiently complex and splendid, you've already got everything you need, really. I mean, once you've got a reputation for, say... kicking polar bears, people just react to THAT. they can react in oodles of different ways, even with just a single positive-to-negative "regard" scale. I mean, you don't even have to tie everything to that scale. Maybe something you say triggers some dislike in that person (within the "under the hood" machinery, as Archmage Silver pointed out), but has no effect whatsoever on whether or not they'll pay you for some service you performed. That's really up to them. Some people might respect you, and still hate you, and decide that the hate overrules the respect, and that you shouldn't get paid. And some people won't, and will still pay you, despite despising you.

 

And, essentially, you've got 2 forms of reputation: Hearsay, and experience. What people think of you without first-hand knowledge or evidence, and what people "know" about you based on first-hand interaction with you (I say "know" because you could obviously be acting or otherwise tricking them). We don't need meters to see exactly how everyone's going to react to different factors in that reputation. However... this brings me to a new thought spark:

 

What if we extended the idea of reputation to EVERYone? Well, I mean, for the most part. Obviously that person who just pretty much delivers a line about the weather whenever you click on them doesn't need much representation in the reputation system (as far as game-coding goes, their reputation is irrelevant if you happen to be incapable of ever talking to them in detail, or having them affect anything else in the game, really). But, what I mean is, maybe NPCs have traits/characteristics, and you can either find out about them via hearsay and information-gathering, or you could discover them via dialogue. Maybe this stuff would be noted, to give you SOME idea of how they will react to things? A simple example would be "cat-lover." Obviously, if you speak ill of cats to a little old cat-lover lady, she's probably going to react negatively (although how negatively is still up in the air). And if you talk about how great cats are, she's going to react positively. Or, if she finds out you ever did anything of any significance that helped stray cats, or saved someone's cat, or protected/aided cats in some way, she's going to like you. Hell, maybe if your Ranger has a feline pet, she reacts to that, even.

 

Thing is, "Cat-lover" just tells you about that ONE aspect. So, it's not like a cheat sheet or anything. But, you could even have some kind of mental stat or wits-based skill, with different values affecting how easily you notice specifically what people are reacting positively or negatively to in your dialogues, etc. You know, "I noticed she scowled when I said the word 'son,'" as opposed to "I dunno, I asked if her son had ever met a man named Gregory, and she scowled. Maybe she hates Gregory? Or maybe she just doesn't like people asking about things? *Shrug*".

 

Since that was so narrow a scope for so much elaboration, I'll throw out a few more examples of NPC reactionary traits:

 

Hot Tempered.

Honest.

Greedy.

Deceptive.

Lover of Silver.

Sympathizer.

Paranoid.

 

Just a thought. A really long thought. As always,

Edited June 10, 2013 by Lephys

[mcmanusaur]

^ True. McManusaur brings up a good point, though. With a reputation system in place already, and assuming it's going to be sufficiently complex and splendid, you've already got everything you need, really. I mean, once you've got a reputation for, say... kicking polar bears, people just react to THAT. they can react in oodles of different ways, even with just a single positive-to-negative "regard" scale. I mean, you don't even have to tie everything to that scale. Maybe something you say triggers some dislike in that person (within the "under the hood" machinery, as Archmage Silver pointed out), but has no effect whatsoever on whether or not they'll pay you for some service you performed. That's really up to them. Some people might respect you, and still hate you, and decide that the hate overrules the respect, and that you shouldn't get paid. And some people won't, and will still pay you, despite despising you.

 

And, essentially, you've got 2 forms of reputation: Hearsay, and experience. What people think of you without first-hand knowledge or evidence, and what people "know" about you based on first-hand interaction with you (I say "know" because you could obviously be acting or otherwise tricking them). We don't need meters to see exactly how everyone's going to react to different factors in that reputation. However... this brings me to a new thought spark:

 

What if we extended the idea of reputation to EVERYone? Well, I mean, for the most part. Obviously that person who just pretty much delivers a line about the weather whenever you click on them doesn't need much representation in the reputation system (as far as game-coding goes, their reputation is irrelevant if you happen to be incapable of ever talking to them in detail, or having them affect anything else in the game, really). But, what I mean is, maybe NPCs have traits/characteristics, and you can either find out about them via hearsay and information-gathering, or you could discover them via dialogue. Maybe this stuff would be noted, to give you SOME idea of how they will react to things? A simple example would be "cat-lover." Obviously, if you speak ill of cats to a little old cat-lover lady, she's probably going to react negatively (although how negatively is still up in the air). And if you talk about how great cats are, she's going to react positively. Or, if she finds out you ever did anything of any significance that helped stray cats, or saved someone's cat, or protected/aided cats in some way, she's going to like you. Hell, maybe if your Ranger has a feline pet, she reacts to that, even.

 

Thing is, "Cat-lover" just tells you about that ONE aspect. So, it's not like a cheat sheet or anything. But, you could even have some kind of mental stat or wits-based skill, with different values affecting how easily you notice specifically what people are reacting positively or negatively to in your dialogues, etc. You know, "I noticed she scowled when I said the word 'son,'" as opposed to "I dunno, I asked if her son had ever met a man named Gregory, and she scowled. Maybe she hates Gregory? Or maybe she just doesn't like people asking about things? *Shrug*".

 

Since that was so narrow a scope for so much elaboration, I'll throw out a few more examples of NPC reactionary traits:

 

Hot Tempered.

Honest.

Greedy.

Deceptive.

Lover of Silver.

Sympathizer.

Paranoid.

 

Just a thought. A really long thought. As always,

 

Yeah, I've thought about this approach before. Not to detract from the importance of quality dialogue writing, or to suggest that this system would work for NPCs with significance to the game's core narrative, but hypothetically with a long enough list of traits you could generate a nearly endless list of NPCs given the almost infinite number of combinations. While this probably isn't meant for Project Eternity, I think that an RPG that uses this system to dynamically generate unique minor NPCs (paving the way for NPCs to age and procreate) would be really interesting. Well, we can dream at least, can't we?

[Archmage Silver]

Certainly some interesting ideas there... although if the trait identification was tied to a certain attribute or skill, it would make that particular attribute or skill imbalanced due to the fact that players investing in it would get better rewards, better quest solutions and a host of other benefits. In a dialogue-based RPG that wouldn't really work out that well for the players who didn't invest in this "trait identifcation".

 

Still, it's an interesting concept, it just would have to be implemented from the ground up to avoid imbalancing any one aspect of char development.