Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bryy

Dialogue Options Don't Really Do Anything

Recommended Posts

I really like the choices you made for the dialogue system, especially the personality traits. Some are a bit harder to figure out than others (for example, [passionate] is much more complex than the stereotypical [agressive] ), but overall they work very well I think.

 

One thing I noticed though is that sometimes dialogue options I choose don't disappear, they remain but are sort of greyed out. Choosing them again leads to the exact same answer as before. I know other games use mechanics like these to indicate that I've "asked this question before", but it's not quite consistent - other dialogue options disappear entirely after being chosen and I can't quite figure out the difference between the two types. Is this intentional? I'm also not quite sold on the remaining-but-greyed-out dialogue options, it just breaks immersion too much to be able to repeat the same line over and over with NPCs just playing along, instead of hitting you over the head with a pipe eventually.

I think they leave these options so that we can read the NPC's answers again if we don't remember what they said. But I agree with you, it's strange and immersion breaking.

 

It would be better if the greyed dialogue was hidden and we had to click somewhere to see it.


sign.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very pleased to find that attribute-related options aren't "win conversation" buttons and that when I told that gentleman how unlikely I thought it that a woman would lie with him, he angrily told me there wasn't a right way to take such a statement. Good stuff.

  • Like 1

"Forsooth, methinks you are no ordinary talking chicken!"

-Protagonist, Baldur's Gate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, if you have a reputation for deceit, doesn't that mean you are not actually very good at it?

I guess always getting away with it, in the moment, doesn't mean that no one ever realizes what you've done afterwards. For example, if you keep convincing people you're someone else, they'll probably eventually find out you're not that person, but they still won't know exactly who you are.

 

Of course, then I guess you couldn't really develop that reputation. *shrug*. I guess they could describe you, unless you used elaborate disguises.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, if you have a reputation for deceit, doesn't that mean you are not actually very good at it? 

 

 

Anyways, I really like the system, but I wonder if it would be advantageous to have a personality "level up" for our characters at the start since we are level 5 and we would enter this area presumably with some personality points built up.

 

Not necessarily. For example, a lie that works in the short term might be obviously false in the long term. Also, betraying one person to another person would make a deceitful nature rather obvious to at least one of the involved parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying to the many questions Eric. We always appreciate when those involved in making the game can manage some time to reply on the forums.  Your comments have answered a few questions i had,  but never posted on. How the skill checks are applied in conversation in game etc.

I do agree and have posted on this before that i find myself looking at what type of skill check are required in a conversation rather than what i am actually saying. As a passionate character i would choose that option without paying too great a time with what that option is actually saying to the npc. A removal or disable ability to hide the skill check options i think would be helpful in immersing myself in the game/ better roleplay with my character.

 

One thing i absolutly loved about Fallout 2 was its diverse dialog options. To wait with anticipation how a particular npc would act/reply to the many and often humerious reply options. Being able to identify with the character on general conversation terms was usually more than enough to guess how a npc would react to the more exotic options which i think was a great way of immersion, creating a much stronger sense of empathy towards Npcs.

 

So thats a +1 for Hiding skill checks whilst in dialog.

Edited by BLnoT

Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day...

Set a man on fire and he will be warm the rest of his life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...no woman would ever lay with someone ...

Leave it to the Codex to be the grammar nerds. I think this is supposed to be lie. I'm not sure if it's actual dialogue, but I thought I'd bring it up just in case.

 

Busted! No, was just a lazy post - not in the game.

 

Osvir, to your question, I don't have much say over the skill system other than how we do skill checks in dialogue. But our systems guys will be addressing all the beta feedback they can, so I'm sure it'll get evaluated. This kind of feedback is very useful to us - thanks for taking the time.

 

 

BTW can you tell the GUI team to add settings for GUI elements (like what you can see in dialogue, ingame combat, etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Eric.

 

I like what I am hearing about the conversations work and, so far, this is one of my favorite parts of the beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug. 

 

 

The main metagaming issue I have is that personality is a part of combat stats in such a way that it is very sub-par to take or not take Perception/Int/Resolve on some classes. I would've preferred personality traits be a bit more separate so that class choice doesn't dictate so much of my character's personality, if I want to build that class to be effective at the role I want anyway.

 

For example, if I am playing most caster classes there is very little reason to choose perception currently. It doesn't do anything that substantially improves those classes for their role outside of niche sub-par builds like a Skaen dual wielder.

 

Resolve is also a bit of a dud. All of my Druid, Cipher, Priest, Wizard builds right now have high Might, Intellect, and middling Dexterity. I knock a few points off Constitution, Perception, Resolve to achieve this. If I play any of these as my main I worry my character will be penalized in dialogue for being imperceptive and weak willed when those aren't necessarily aligning with the personality I'd want to play.

 

Right now the attribute effects don't feel that sensibly matched to their name anyway, if feels a bit like having the me attributes define combat capability and mental state was arbitrarily carried over from DnD.

 

 

Probably too late now I would've rather have something like a separate set of dialogue/personality-based strength/weaknesses and neutral ones with pro/cons, while for combat I'd be fine just picking increased AoE, duration, damage without them being packaged into attributes.

Edited by Odd Hermit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Perception gave +1 Accuracy, you would take it again.

Intellect is good on most classes, but not really the Ranger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Perception gave +1 Accuracy, you would take it again.

 

Intellect is good on most classes, but not really the Ranger.

 

True(I'd stack it instead of dex probably) but it doesn't necessarily fix the issue.

 

Perhaps some people want to play an imperceptive character. Can you be accurate and not perceptive?  I'd think you can. Visual acuity and social perceptiveness are very different.

 

Then there's issues like might not really being strength, but in the beta it's used to push heavy things. :/

 

It'd just feel a lot less silly, and a lot more "clean", to me to just choose the combat strengths of a character separately.

Edited by Odd Hermit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was always an issue, though. "I want to be strong and agile, but I don't want to have no charisma, even though charisma would come at the cost of some combat-supporting attributes."

 

*shrug*

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was always an issue, though. "I want to be strong and agile, but I don't want to have no charisma, even though charisma would come at the cost of some combat-supporting attributes."

 

*shrug*

 

If a game is mostly combat focused it doesn't make sense to sacrifice combat ability for the occasional dialogue option.

 

Plus some classes got away with good dialogue and combat ability. Sorcerers for example, with a Paladin dip for wtf saving throws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree, but what do you expect to occur without completely separating combat stats from non-combat stats?

 

I mean, you could do that, but then, how do you have checks for something like Strength or Dexterity? Do you have combat Dexterity, then non-combat Dexterity?

 

As a Wizard in D&D, I always enjoyed having pretty decent Strength, so that when we got into a bind and the Fighter or typical brute-force person was out cold, I could be surprisingly helpful by lifting debris, moving things, etc. It didn't really help me in combat much, so it was, in that context, a non-combat stat for me.

 

I'm just not sure how to design a stat system in which you don't have to give up a "roleplaying" (for lack of a better term) character aspect for sheer combat effectiveness at some point, or vice versa. You can't have EXCELLENT eyesight, but also be highly inaccurate in a fight. You can have high Perception and low Strength, but you can't be only-combat-good at something, while being non-combat terrible at it.

 

*shrug*. I guess this is where skills come in handy. You can be strong, but have absolutely no skill with a weapon whatsoever. Boom. You've got combat effectiveness potential, but the stat itself doesn't really lend itself to either combat or non-combat. That might be the best way to go. The stat is raw potential, and the skill is applied potential. As in, you could have amazing Perception, but that doesn't let you track an animal or aim a bow at a guy 100 yards away. You still need skill with tracking, and with archery.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a system like this?  You treat the attributes as what they are (a spreadsheet of % modifiers to various things- personally I'd rather increment each of them directly rather than keep up the pretense), and you bind dialogue options to skills.  Lore instead of Int, Stealth instead of Dex, Athletics instead of Strength.  Some get a bit fuzzy, but since the game seems to treat mechanics as perception anyway (in terms of noticing traps and other hidden things), I'd go for that over survival.  You might need another skill or two, but the skills are a bit flat and lacking anyway, so could use more breadth as is.

 

 

Attributes are something of legacy mechanic anyway, kept around more out of habit than rationale.  Much to the detriment of the last two versions of D&D, which try to bind them directly to defenses as well (4th literally gives up and makes half of them dump stats for each class, and 5th just decrees that some saving throws are worth less than others).  You could easily map the effects of a strength bonus or perception bonus as a feat/talent/perk, but you'd have to give them out more often, or at least at level 1. .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death to ability scores.

 

(I fully recognize that there was a 0% chance Obsidian was going to make a game pitched as a successor to the IE games and not use both ability scores and a class system.)

Edited by Tamerlane

jcod0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ability Scores are cool and should stay. You guys are nuts.

  • Like 1

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ability Scores are cool and should stay. You guys are nuts.

 

It is the egalitarian way. Everyone is created equal. Death to ability scores.

 

 

Just kidding, I'm not retarded, I was just pretending.

 

  • Like 2

t50aJUd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug. 

 

 

The main metagaming issue I have is that personality is a part of combat stats in such a way that it is very sub-par to take or not take Perception/Int/Resolve on some classes. I would've preferred personality traits be a bit more separate so that class choice doesn't dictate so much of my character's personality, if I want to build that class to be effective at the role I want anyway.

 

For example, if I am playing most caster classes there is very little reason to choose perception currently. It doesn't do anything that substantially improves those classes for their role outside of niche sub-par builds like a Skaen dual wielder.

 

Resolve is also a bit of a dud. All of my Druid, Cipher, Priest, Wizard builds right now have high Might, Intellect, and middling Dexterity. I knock a few points off Constitution, Perception, Resolve to achieve this. If I play any of these as my main I worry my character will be penalized in dialogue for being imperceptive and weak willed when those aren't necessarily aligning with the personality I'd want to play.

 

Right now the attribute effects don't feel that sensibly matched to their name anyway, if feels a bit like having the me attributes define combat capability and mental state was arbitrarily carried over from DnD.

 

 

Probably too late now I would've rather have something like a separate set of dialogue/personality-based strength/weaknesses and neutral ones with pro/cons, while for combat I'd be fine just picking increased AoE, duration, damage without them being packaged into attributes.

 

Agreed. But for now I give the attributes to my main that I would want its personality to have and just suck up the consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree, but what do you expect to occur without completely separating combat stats from non-combat stats?

 

I mean, you could do that, but then, how do you have checks for something like Strength or Dexterity? Do you have combat Dexterity, then non-combat Dexterity?

 

As a Wizard in D&D, I always enjoyed having pretty decent Strength, so that when we got into a bind and the Fighter or typical brute-force person was out cold, I could be surprisingly helpful by lifting debris, moving things, etc. It didn't really help me in combat much, so it was, in that context, a non-combat stat for me.

 

I'm just not sure how to design a stat system in which you don't have to give up a "roleplaying" (for lack of a better term) character aspect for sheer combat effectiveness at some point, or vice versa. You can't have EXCELLENT eyesight, but also be highly inaccurate in a fight. You can have high Perception and low Strength, but you can't be only-combat-good at something, while being non-combat terrible at it.

 

*shrug*. I guess this is where skills come in handy. You can be strong, but have absolutely no skill with a weapon whatsoever. Boom. You've got combat effectiveness potential, but the stat itself doesn't really lend itself to either combat or non-combat. That might be the best way to go. The stat is raw potential, and the skill is applied potential. As in, you could have amazing Perception, but that doesn't let you track an animal or aim a bow at a guy 100 yards away. You still need skill with tracking, and with archery.

 

Thing is, it's not a PnP game it's a CRPG. They can't create enough use for oddball uses for every attribute outside of combat. And it's harder to get into roleplaying a flawed character since a video game just isn't as open and flexible. You enter combat frequently and you're going to be at a noticeable disadvantage without necessarily having the means to counteract that whether it's leveling slowly on lower level / easier things or acquiring enough currency to buy gear to make up for an inefficient build.

 

And I would say you definitely could have excellent eyesight and be inaccurate in a fight. But arguing over such specifics isn't the point. What the attributes do right now could easily just be given to us unpackaged without the labels - you want longer durations? spend points on duration. Doesn't need to make your character have high intellect. Then we could indeed pick something like skills to apply to dialogues and other checks.

 

It's probably not going to happen, I just see it as a more ideal system. I'm not feeling the attributes thing, they're muddled, tangled up with skills, and somewhat inconsistent feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I would urge any player to really roleplay his or her character. It's not something I can enforce on my end so much as encourage, but I would want players to choose options based on how they think and what they would say. There are a number of other systems choices we've made here (personality rep and background come to mind, as well as our companion interactions) to try to help the player to develop a character over the course of the story rather than to just play some empty, static avatar. Hopefully it gives a little more meaning to the overall experience.

 

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug.

 

Well, what you say here and what I heard from Josh in the interview on twitch, reminded me of the following question I had - in the twitch stream I heard that dialogue with a temporary npc I will have in the beginning of the game is used to set up my character's biography prior to the beginning of the events in the game. Back when I watched the Jesse Cox stream, where this dialogue was shown, I thought that I would rather not be completely honest about my past with a stranger. Yesterday I learned that if I had roleplayed in this way, this would have set up a biography I actually don't want my character to have. I know this isn't an issue now that I know about it, and also that I should bear the need to be honest with an npc I will have only for a short time (a fact which an unprepared player would not know on his first playthrough), but it's still a conflict between roleplaying and game mechanics requirements. Edited by Gairnulf
  • Like 2

A Custom Editor for Deadfire's Data:
eFoHp9V.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

- I would urge any player to really roleplay his or her character. It's not something I can enforce on my end so much as encourage, but I would want players to choose options based on how they think and what they would say. There are a number of other systems choices we've made here (personality rep and background come to mind, as well as our companion interactions) to try to help the player to develop a character over the course of the story rather than to just play some empty, static avatar. Hopefully it gives a little more meaning to the overall experience.

 

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug.

Well, what you say here and what I heard from Josh in the interview on twitch, reminded me of the following question I had - in the twotch stream I heard that dialogue with a temporary npc I will have in the beginning of the game is used to set up my character's biography prior to the beginning of the events in the game. Back when I watched the Jesse Cox stream, where this dialogue was shown, I thought that I would rather not be completely honest about my past with a stranger. Yesterday I learned that if I had roleplayed in this way, this would have set up a biography I actually don't want my character to have. I know this isn't an issue now that I know about it, and also that I should bear the need to be honest with an npc I will have only for a short time (a fact which an unprepared player would not know on his first playthrough), but it's still a conflict between roleplaying and game mechanics requirements.

 

Agreed. I find what how they interpret my answer to not be what I had in mind for my character. I don't see why they don't just keep the blank slate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- I would urge any player to really roleplay his or her character. It's not something I can enforce on my end so much as encourage, but I would want players to choose options based on how they think and what they would say. There are a number of other systems choices we've made here (personality rep and background come to mind, as well as our companion interactions) to try to help the player to develop a character over the course of the story rather than to just play some empty, static avatar. Hopefully it gives a little more meaning to the overall experience.

 

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug.

Well, what you say here and what I heard from Josh in the interview on twitch, reminded me of the following question I had - in the twitch stream I heard that dialogue with a temporary npc I will have in the beginning of the game is used to set up my character's biography prior to the beginning of the events in the game. Back when I watched the Jesse Cox stream, where this dialogue was shown, I thought that I would rather not be completely honest about my past with a stranger. Yesterday I learned that if I had roleplayed in this way, this would have set up a biography I actually don't want my character to have. I know this isn't an issue now that I know about it, and also that I should bear the need to be honest with an npc I will have only for a short time (a fact which an unprepared player would not know on his first playthrough), but it's still a conflict between roleplaying and game mechanics requirements.

 

 

That's a good point. You have to be a super honest chap for the purpose of creating your biography? It would be kind of ironic if you wanted to roleplay a mysterious, shady thief type...

 

But I guess when you straight out lie in these games, it usually literally says "lie" in brackets... everything else we must accept as the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

- I would urge any player to really roleplay his or her character. It's not something I can enforce on my end so much as encourage, but I would want players to choose options based on how they think and what they would say. There are a number of other systems choices we've made here (personality rep and background come to mind, as well as our companion interactions) to try to help the player to develop a character over the course of the story rather than to just play some empty, static avatar. Hopefully it gives a little more meaning to the overall experience.

 

All that said, if you find that some interaction really forces you to metagame to get the option you want, and requires you to act out-of-character, that's a serious narrative issue, so go ahead and report that as a bug.

Well, what you say here and what I heard from Josh in the interview on twitch, reminded me of the following question I had - in the twitch stream I heard that dialogue with a temporary npc I will have in the beginning of the game is used to set up my character's biography prior to the beginning of the events in the game. Back when I watched the Jesse Cox stream, where this dialogue was shown, I thought that I would rather not be completely honest about my past with a stranger. Yesterday I learned that if I had roleplayed in this way, this would have set up a biography I actually don't want my character to have. I know this isn't an issue now that I know about it, and also that I should bear the need to be honest with an npc I will have only for a short time (a fact which an unprepared player would not know on his first playthrough), but it's still a conflict between roleplaying and game mechanics requirements.

 

 

That's a good point. You have to be a super honest chap for the purpose of creating your biography? It would be kind of ironic if you wanted to roleplay a mysterious, shady thief type...

 

But I guess when you straight out lie in these games, it usually literally says "lie" in brackets... everything else we must accept as the truth.

 

I was thinking about playing a former slave who is running from their past--my idea was to refuse to discuss my slave past during the biography, answer the other questions honestly, and slowly reveal my past to my companions over time as I'm forced to confront various issues and concepts over the course of the game. Now that I saw the stream the other day, I'm not sure any more if this is a viable roleplaying path.

Edited by Katarack21
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the days that I spend an hour or 2 writing IWD character biographies no one reads and no-one cares about...

 

And yeah, ability scores, skill scores and whatever the hell else scores are awesome. I want my build to matter in dialogues too, dammit.


^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...