Party Dialogue Options

[draego]

I just watched this video. https://youtu.be/78V3ziK-0tE?t=323. At the point i set the link to, Josh mentioned something interesting about party skill bonuses contributing to dialogue options. This is not a huge issue for me but can be an annoyance in games depending on how its implemented. The way Josh describes it may end up perfectly fine. Josh basically describes this system that if multiple party members have bluff or diplomacy then you benefit from it in dialogue. After playing games like wasteland 2 and tide of numenera i have come to not enjoy their party based conversations mechanics. 

 

First issue: You can design your party to never fail. 

 

I get Wasteland 2 is not a single player game you create your party which already bugged me (to play the game i actually had to roleplay that i was one of the characters but its a hard game to do that in) but you could basically design your party to cover nearly all possible skills in the game and never fail anything. So the skills at that point felt kinda irrelevant and not special. It became less about role playing and more about mechanics. At least pillars has hard skill checks, the percentage skill checks in wasteland to me only encourages save scrumming which i tried really hard not fall into in that game (but that is a separate issue)

 

Second issue: I find it weird that my character starts a conversation and in the middle of it my companion says this one line of dialogue because he happens to have the skill check for it. 

 

So it seems like this is not what is happening to Pillars the way josh is describing it but this really bugged me in Torment. You would be having a conversation in torment going down a dialogue tree. The person is talking with you but all the sudden a skill check you dont think you can pass pops up and you can just have this random person in your party say this one line of dialogue (that is how i interpret when you click a dialogue but use your companion to pass the check) so you can meet the skill check and then go back to you talking. It always seemed a little weird from a roleplaying point of view and it also had the additional problem that i mentioned above that with a large party you could cover all the needed skill checks so as to almost never fail.

 

I do like the idea of having other characters go out perform tasks that maybe you cant do so like sending one of your companions to save the people in the stalwart burning house (or even a conversation task like pick pocket) but it would feel weird to have them talk for you (which seem not to be happening i think) or that you could design parties to never 'fail' conversation. One saving grace for Pillars is that just because you can use a dialogue option doesnt mean it optimal. This whole mechanic however feels like it diminishes the roleplaying within conversation and makes it into more a mechanical exercise in how to optimize your party skills to win conversations like you do with combat skills.

 

This kinda mechanic seems to encourage you to say something that your character would never say just because you can win the conversation due to your party member skills.

 

I guess one way to let it feel more like roleplaying is to have whoever starts the conversation be the person who is talking so then you can use their skills checks only. That can still be a little cheesy but would feel more like role playing then having your npcs randomly say one line here and there.

Edited June 16, 2017 by draego

[blotter]

Whether or not you can actually design your party in such a way that it becomes impossible to fail any skill checks may depend on a number of things, chiefly the exact number of skills, the availability of skills in relation to background/class, the requisite number of ranks to gain options/pass checks, and the limitations to contribution, if any. In regards to the latter, it may be that there is a maximum contribution bonus; it's also possible that party members only contribute skill bonuses to skills you actually have in dialogue or that the contribution bonus is lowered in cases where you lack any knowledge of the skill. Also bear in mind that Sawyer has confirmed that attributes still influence dialogue options, and there's no indication that companions can contribute to checks of that nature.

 

Even if limitations along the lines of what I described above do apply, companions would probably be able to apply their skills a lot more freely through scripted interactions, which seems appropriate enough. However, if the White March is any indication, skills aren't the only things that may factor into scripted event options: spells and other class abilities are likely to turn up, as are options involving items (e.g., ropes, crowbars, hammers and chisels, water-breathing devices, and so forth). There may also be situations where scripted event options and developments change based on prior quest decisions and your relationships with other groups in the vein of the Battle of Yenwood Field quest from Pillars 1, in which case there may be situations where there are specific outcomes that are beyond reach for you no matter how high your skill ranks are.

 

Also keep in mind that the maximum party size is five here, which may somewhat limit the party's ability to branch out into various skills as well.

 

Second issue: I find it weird that my character starts a conversation and in the middle of it my companion says this one line of dialogue because he happens to have the skill check for it. 

 

So it seems like this is not what is happening to Pillars the way josh is describing it but this really bugged me in Torment.

 

The way Sawyer described it, I'd agree that the contribution system in place doesn't really seem to reflect this sort of shifting speaker dynamic, but this is another place where it comes down to user interpretation. The companions are adding to your character's chances of success on a check based on their ranks (which probably don't apply on a one-for-one basis), so for dialogue skills it's probably more like they're chiming in at strategic points or, like the interviewer said, "whispering hints in your ear".

 

Of course, one could argue that's just as weird given the way dialogue usually works, though this may depend on the prevalence of dialogue checks. If there are a lot of them, then this sort of party collaboration becomes less a jarring divergence from standard dialogue practices and more of a common occurrence itself, for example.

 

Then again, I don't really see what's so strange about a party member who specializes in negotiations, for example, interjecting during a conversation to help defuse a situation. It seems like exactly the kind of thing you'd keep them around for in the first place. Sure, you might expect someone with that type of skill set to have more of a presence throughout dialogues overall, but the fact that they don't has more to do with the constraints and necessities of the dialogue system. In a roleplaying game, we generally expect it to be our actions and decisions that drive changes and responses during interactions, and setting aside the amount of extra writing involved, a companion who consistently seized the reins in conversations would be pretty annoying/disruptive if we lacked control over their ability to do so.

 

This whole mechanic however feels like it diminishes the roleplaying within conversation and makes it into more a mechanical exercise in how to optimize your party skills to win conversations like you do with combat skills.

 

This kinda mechanic seems to encourage you to say something that your character would never say just because you can win the conversation due to your party member skills.

 

Whether being able to 'win' conversations through skills diminishes roleplaying or not has a lot more to do with the player than the existence of the dialogue skills themselves. If your character would never say something, then don't say it when the option comes up. I can see how the temptation would be there, I guess, but it's generally a good thing for options in a roleplaying game to be tempting.

 

Another thing to consider is whether 'winning' a conversation is really the be-all and end-all given the greater focus on faction relationships that they're going for in Deadfire. Compulsively striving to curry favor with others, for example, may actually diminish your standing in your faction of choice if enough of the people you're pandering to are involved with other factions themselves or cost you opportunities that might arise if your loyalties were less divided. Or so I'd hope, anyway.

[draego]

I generally agree that Pillars alleviates the need to win dialogue because a lot of choices lead to different results and not necessarily better results. i also agree that when it comes to tasks to perform then it is natural to have one of your companions do it. Like the burning house example in stalwart or even during conversations if say a pick pocket option comes up. You are correct about the roleplaying aspect as well that just because you can doesn't mean your character should. I think it maybe fine in POE2, i just know that weirdness in the other games i mentioned with the whak-a-mole like conversations detracting from my roleplaying enjoyment. After all i am on this adventure not aloth or eder and the conversations system seem to detract ( but not ruin) from my single player experience in those other games.

[injurai]

1. I really doubt you'll be able to build a party that passes all checks in the game, even all dialogue checks.

 

2. Why is it weird that people standing next to you devoting their life to the same overall mission as you, wouldn't chime in on a public conversation being held in front of them when they have pertinent knowledge or thoughts. It would be weird for them not to. In fact PoE had too little of this chiming in imo.

[draego]

1. I really doubt you'll be able to build a party that passes all checks in the game, even all dialogue checks.

 

2. Why is it weird that people standing next to you devoting their life to the same overall mission as you, wouldn't chime in on a public conversation being held in front of them when they have pertinent knowledge or thoughts. It would be weird for them not to. In fact PoE had too little of this chiming in imo.

 

I hope so but like i mention when you have a party i have seen the opposite happen in some recent games. 

 

Its weird because i am trying to role play my character. If my character is undiplomatic and cruel and what not i dont want the fact that one of my characters allows me access to diplomatic choices otherwise whats the point of my main characters role in my head. It seems weird to me for my main character to have a conversations with npcs that determines my personal reputation to be affected by random characters that join my travels. Its really the difference in how we view the game. To me this is still a single player adventure. When i am choosing dialogue its is with my main characters voice and its weird to me that a random skill from an npc who is not talking can contribute to that. Yes if my companion were allowed to initiate the conversation and they were the mouth piece of my party then it would be fine.

 

Its not a huge issue i suppose and in the games i mentioned like wasteland 2 and torment i had more of an issue with what they did. Josh basically said the main will still be speaking with their voice its just companions can aid them not talk for them. so its not quite the same issue i had with those other games.

Edited June 16, 2017 by draego

[injurai]

I think that should be handled by allowing the watcher to give an opinion on their own parties opinions. The Watcher is key more or less to unraveling the mysteries that are going on, so I see them as more or less deferring or putting up with your actions. Since they ultimately want to reserve control over aspects more directly related to their reason for being with you. If they say something that upsets an NPC I'd like options to clarify or resolve that conflict. As far as I see it, going that route only can make interactions better.

[draego]

I think that should be handled by allowing the watcher to give an opinion on their own parties opinions. The Watcher is key more or less to unraveling the mysteries that are going on, so I see them as more or less deferring or putting up with your actions. Since they ultimately want to reserve control over aspects more directly related to their reason for being with you. If they say something that upsets an NPC I'd like options to clarify or resolve that conflict. As far as I see it, going that route only can make interactions better.

 

I actually remember Josh saying they will chime in conversation or comment on your actions which i think will be fun and useful. I was just referring specifically to when you click a specific dialogue option as if you were the one saying it but getting the benefit of one of your companions skills even though your are the one speaking.

[smjjames]

I think that should be handled by allowing the watcher to give an opinion on their own parties opinions. The Watcher is key more or less to unraveling the mysteries that are going on, so I see them as more or less deferring or putting up with your actions. Since they ultimately want to reserve control over aspects more directly related to their reason for being with you. If they say something that upsets an NPC I'd like options to clarify or resolve that conflict. As far as I see it, going that route only can make interactions better.

 

From what I've seen in the fig updates (they said they were going to give a new update during or right after E3 though), it sounds like that's what they're trying to do.

 

It would be great to see a preview of how it works.

[injurai]

 

I think that should be handled by allowing the watcher to give an opinion on their own parties opinions. The Watcher is key more or less to unraveling the mysteries that are going on, so I see them as more or less deferring or putting up with your actions. Since they ultimately want to reserve control over aspects more directly related to their reason for being with you. If they say something that upsets an NPC I'd like options to clarify or resolve that conflict. As far as I see it, going that route only can make interactions better.

 

From what I've seen in the fig updates (they said they were going to give a new update during or right after E3 though), it sounds like that's what they're trying to do.

 

It would be great to see a preview of how it works.

 

 

Yeah, I sort of figured that was the direction conversations would be going. Specifically due to the new relationship mechanic. How else are relationships going to play out other than the watcher and the companions playing off of each other during conversations. It should all be about towing the line between what you want/feel, what your companions want/feel, and what the npcs what/feel.

[Wormerine]

 

I think that should be handled by allowing the watcher to give an opinion on their own parties opinions. The Watcher is key more or less to unraveling the mysteries that are going on, so I see them as more or less deferring or putting up with your actions. Since they ultimately want to reserve control over aspects more directly related to their reason for being with you. If they say something that upsets an NPC I'd like options to clarify or resolve that conflict. As far as I see it, going that route only can make interactions better.

 

I actually remember Josh saying they will chime in conversation or comment on your actions which i think will be fun and useful. I was just referring specifically to when you click a specific dialogue option as if you were the one saying it but getting the benefit of one of your companions skills even though your are the one speaking.

 

From what I understood from the interview, your companions score will add is some way with your score and thus improve your chances of passing the skill check. I don't believe they will say something instead of your character (that would be simply a lot of extra writing.) I guess it will work a bit like Crusader Kings with advisors. You will have your base stat and on top of that, you will get a bonus based on how high your companions' skill is and that will be the final ability stat which will go against check. We do know, the individual companions will interact in direct way during scripted interactions (like in White March) but I don't think it will happen in dialogue. I imagine it is a way to utilize your companions skills. Josh stated that gameplay and dialogue related skills will be seperated this time around so your roleplaying won't conflict with character builds. If your companions dialogue skills wouldn't add to regular dialogue than for them those would be useless stats.

[MortyTheGobbo]

Why wouldn't you want to build your party to pass every skill check? The point of having a party game with intricate character building tools is to create a well-rounded team that can handle every challenge.

 

More participation from your team in conversations and interactions is a good thing. It's always been a problem with social skills in such games that only the PC could actually use them.

 

And if you don't feel like an option your character qualifies for fits them... don't choose it. It's as simple as that. But maybe don't demand that the devs cut options to preserve your sense of role-playing. Which looks to be very fragile and easily-disrupted, given what it apparently takes to ruin it.

[Wormerine]

Why wouldn't you want to build your party to pass every skill check? The point of having a party game with intricate character building tools is to create a well-rounded team that can handle every challenge.

 

More participation from your team in conversations and interactions is a good thing. It's always been a problem with social skills in such games that only the PC could actually use them.

 

And if you don't feel like an option your character qualifies for fits them... don't choose it. It's as simple as that. But maybe don't demand that the devs cut options to preserve your sense of role-playing. Which looks to be very fragile and easily-disrupted, given what it apparently takes to ruin it.

Well, I for one like when game recognises my strengths and weaknesses. Opening different paths, and dialogue options, based on who your are and what can you do does vary things up when replaying the game. If it is easy to fill all the skill slots, than what is really a point of choosing between them? It is better to have every choice, than limited choice. At this point skills become a busywork rather than a choice e.g. Torment TotN and Wasteland 2

[injurai]

 

Why wouldn't you want to build your party to pass every skill check? The point of having a party game with intricate character building tools is to create a well-rounded team that can handle every challenge.

 

More participation from your team in conversations and interactions is a good thing. It's always been a problem with social skills in such games that only the PC could actually use them.

 

And if you don't feel like an option your character qualifies for fits them... don't choose it. It's as simple as that. But maybe don't demand that the devs cut options to preserve your sense of role-playing. Which looks to be very fragile and easily-disrupted, given what it apparently takes to ruin it.

Well, I for one like when game recognises my strengths and weaknesses. Opening different paths, and dialogue options, based on who your are and what can you do does vary things up when replaying the game. If it is easy to fill all the skill slots, than what is really a point of choosing between them? It is better to have every choice, than limited choice. At this point skills become a busywork rather than a choice e.g. Torment TotN and Wasteland 2

 

 

Yeah, I like trade-offs. It's neat to find out that things play out very differently when you build a character with different strengths. Even if your trying to make similar decisions.

[draego]

 

Why wouldn't you want to build your party to pass every skill check? The point of having a party game with intricate character building tools is to create a well-rounded team that can handle every challenge.

 

More participation from your team in conversations and interactions is a good thing. It's always been a problem with social skills in such games that only the PC could actually use them.

 

And if you don't feel like an option your character qualifies for fits them... don't choose it. It's as simple as that. But maybe don't demand that the devs cut options to preserve your sense of role-playing. Which looks to be very fragile and easily-disrupted, given what it apparently takes to ruin it.

Well, I for one like when game recognises my strengths and weaknesses. Opening different paths, and dialogue options, based on who your are and what can you do does vary things up when replaying the game. If it is easy to fill all the skill slots, than what is really a point of choosing between them? It is better to have every choice, than limited choice. At this point skills become a busywork rather than a choice e.g. Torment TotN and Wasteland 2

 

 

Well said. Like i said above it seems like there are two different experiences players want to have. One being a single player adventure where the game reacts to your choices and one a group tactical experience. I get that this game is combination of both.

 

Also i suppose when i play the game on expert mode i wont notice what is happening with the skills and will no feel pressure to game companion skills. 

 

You were also right that what i am objecting too would make companion passive skills just flavor. That is what happens in lots of D&D games for charisma or speech stuff heh. And that always seemed weird in those games. god help me i am referencing D&D in my argument i must be wrong. Have to go rethink my position. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by draego

[Quillon]

I also don't like Wasteland 2's system where you control multiple characters in dialogue. Its also the reason I didn't play much of DOS. But I'm certain its not the case here. The way I understand it companions' skills will effect if the Watcher's decision will be a success or not. Its very different from interjections, if a companion interjects its because of his/her personality and he/she is there with you(your choice). Personally I love companion interjections, my comp. could say something that could make **** hit the fan but then I can calm the **** down if I can, or I can agree with him/her etc. fun stuff. But returning to skills; my question is if we can allocate companions' dialogue skills? I think it would be illogical if we can f.i. increase Aloth's intimidation skill, his character should dictate that and change depending on how he fares throughout the game. 

 

Also it would make sense for dialogue skills to be "increase by use". Like dispositions. Tho are they the same things now?........We need an update for skills on fig! Or someone with tumblr account ask Sawyer bout this.

[smjjames]

Seems like this is something that the devs could perhaps clarify in a fig update. It doesn't even need to be spoilery, they could do written examples like Bob says X, Alice says Y, but then Dave chimes in with Z response.

 

In a fig update, they also mentioned, specifically for Eder anyway, there would be... not sure if personality traits are the right term to use... but they said that the characters (including your main?) would be tagged with things like pro-Eothas, animal lover, racist (Eder seems to be in the 'doesn't know any better but is willing to change' type of racist, perhaps having an Orlan kid around helps reform him), etc. So, that kind of thing would also come into play, I think.

 

The conversation system is a LOT more complex than in PoE1, that's for sure. At least it feels that way.

[dukeisaac]

We need an update for skills on fig! Or someone with tumblr account ask Sawyer bout this.

This. For me, the change in how skills work (and how many there will be) is one of the largest mechanical changes in POE2 and we hardly know anything about it, except that there will active and passive skills, there's going to be a whole lot more of them and companions will be able to assist.

 

Need an update on this.

[draego]

Ye i am sure we will hear more about it this at some point but Josh does give examples in the video. Basically if your companion has passive skills like diplomacy or bluffing then in dialogue if a particular dialogue option required diplomacy, the passive skills of all your companions will stack to help you unlock that dialogue option. That is how i interpret Josh's answer. There could be some missing mechanics we dont know about. This could be a straight stacking affect meaning it just adds up all the diplomacy skills of your companions and see if that passes the threshold. However, there could be rules we dont know about for where, when, how, diplomacy and other passive skills stack.

 

Or they could not just use summing all skills across all companions but stack the amount of points a companion spent in the skills. Example if you have 4 diplomacy and companion has 1 it could be considered 5 total if just summing across party members or could be 4 total because the amount of points to go from 4 to 5 requires an additional 5 points spent from all companion sources similar to the current POE1 skill progressions and in this example just one of your characters spent 1 point so it doesn't help. But who actually knows until we get an update.

 

If they design the game expecting summing up skills from all companions then i would think they would have to raise the thresholds in conversations. This would mean they would have to set conversation threshold high enough to not make it easy to reach them. This leads to weird situations to me.

 

1 - Your character could have zero diplomacy because you are not diplomatic but because your team is diplomatic you can say things that are diplomatic in conversations YOU are supposedly having. Again if you like the group tactical stuff like in Wasteland or Torment then this isnt an issue but if you like the game to react to your character skills and actions this leads to weird experiences.This one not that big a deal i guess because ye role-playing just dont pick the stuff

 

2 - Your character could be really diplomatic but no one else on your team is but because the game has to be designed expecting summing skills from 5 character, you could run into diplomatic conversation options you cant pass even though you spent most of your points in diplomacy. This would be really egregious but summing all points from all characters would seem to require this to some extent to not make it to easy.

 

None of these points may be an issue because we dont know everything just speculating.

 

Interjections sound great. If companions let you know in and out of dialogue how they feel certain actions you are taking affects them or others around you, or they say something (something not in the dialogue tree for you to say) in the middle of the conversation to npcs your are talking to, that seems fun and interesting. That would seem to make the companions deeper than POE1 but reactivity to your actions/conversations is not the same as giving you passives skills as if you had those skills yourself.

 

And i do want to make clear this is not 'do this or i will not buy the game' like i see bandied about in some of the post here for trivial stuff. This just seems to detract from immersion some (just shot me for saying this phrase agh   ) and will probably be little more than an annoyance at its worst, i hope, but just something i thought was interesting to think about.

Edited June 18, 2017 by draego

[Quillon]

1 - Your character could have zero diplomacy because you are not diplomatic but because your team is diplomatic you can say things that are diplomatic in conversations YOU are supposedly having. Again if you like the group tactical stuff like in Wasteland or Torment then this isnt an issue but if you like the game to react to your character skills and actions this leads to weird experiences.This one not that big a deal i guess because ye role-playing just dont pick the stuff

 

2 - Your character could be really diplomatic but no one else on your team is but because the game has to be designed expecting summing skilld from 5 character, you could run into diplomatic conversation options you cant pass even though you spent most of your points in diplomacy. This would be really egregious but summing all points from all characters would seem to require this to some extent to not make it to easy.

 

1 - The difference here you don't decide what your companions say, just their disposition helps your case. Maybe the bonus is limited somehow. 

 

2 - I guess they'd make crit path skill checks passable with only one character and leave extreme cases for side content.

 

Or maybe these "group checks" happen only when you're talking for the group/doing things as a group; "Don't shoot! We're friendlies!" would require the shooter to evaluate all of you. Or jumping across a chasm as a group etc.