Deleted Member 16721
Guest
I always like a percentage roll-based check based on your stats. Gives more unpredictability and excitement to the dialogue than a static "if you have 'x' number you automatically pass it."
It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.
Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?
Are you saying we will be able to see just mood/tone or the whole answer? Or maybe both likeI don't think so. Essentially, you'll be offered very specific options, let's say appeal to loyalty, appeal to self-interest, appeal to self-preservation (just one specific example). So it will be about reading the character and figuring out which way he/she's leaning. Overall, we tried something similar in 3 conversations in AoD (Lorenza, Azra, praetor investigating Senna's murder) and the players seemed to like it.Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer.
It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.
Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?
Are you saying we will be able to see just mood/tone or the whole answer? Or maybe both likeI don't think so. Essentially, you'll be offered very specific options, let's say appeal to loyalty, appeal to self-interest, appeal to self-preservation (just one specific example). So it will be about reading the character and figuring out which way he/she's leaning. Overall, we tried something similar in 3 conversations in AoD (Lorenza, Azra, praetor investigating Senna's murder) and the players seemed to like it.Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer.
1.[persuasion][loyalty] Bla bla bla...
2.[persuasion][interest] Bla bla...
Otherwise I can see it been confusing at some point, especially for not so advanced english readers.
I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.
No mood/tone tags.Are you saying we will be able to see just mood/tone or the whole answer? Or maybe both likeI don't think so. Essentially, you'll be offered very specific options, let's say appeal to loyalty, appeal to self-interest, appeal to self-preservation (just one specific example). So it will be about reading the character and figuring out which way he/she's leaning. Overall, we tried something similar in 3 conversations in AoD (Lorenza, Azra, praetor investigating Senna's murder) and the players seemed to like it.Also it will not end as reading the characters in conversation, but reading the writer/designer.
1.[persuasion][loyalty] Bla bla bla...
2.[persuasion][interest] Bla bla...
Considering that it's a text-heavy game, if someone can't understand the meaning of a sentence, it's unlikely that he/she would be able to enjoy the game regardless of the dialogue system used.Otherwise I can see it been confusing at some point, especially for not so advanced english readers.
If your skill is low, your character *will* fail regardless of the player's intention. There won't be one right answer but different directions.I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.
It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.
Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?
I'm talking about situations where you have to convince people to do something they don't want to do (i.e. slowly overcome the resistance and make them see the benefits of your proposal) whereas you're talking about gaining someone's respect or getting a minor boon. Imagine, for argument's sake, that you have to convince that old blood and thunder general to switch or something relatively minor like not sending you into battle (because you're a more of a talker). If he asks why, telling him "War is hell" with a firm handshake and steely gaze won't help him see your point of view better.It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.
Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?
I can imagine a few situations in which a stoic might be heeded more than the verbose: Say we're reporting to a gruff, surly quartermaster to equip ourselves for a dangerous assignment. He might well respect the strong, silent types who barks out. "Phase Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." Demonstrating both knowledge and decisiveness, rather than a more flowery approach or wheedling. Though arguably that could be tied into a combat skill more than dialogue.
Or you could be trying to woo an old blood and thunder general, and a firm handshake and steely gaze might sell you better than more convoluted wordplay. "Only two types of talkers I've ever known boy, conmen and queers! Which one are you?"
Obviously, it might increase meta-gaming but that’s your choice and thus not our concern. Every time the player is offered to make a choice with different outcomes, 8 out of 10 people would want to know the outcomes in advance and the exact way to get to the outcome they want.
How does choosing the appropriate dialogue options could subvert the character's established skills/personality in the case of the proposed system? Keyword here is 'appropriate', which means the dialogue options presented will almost always be the one that's relevant to character's stats and skills. It has always been that way among most RPGs worth their salt, but in case of the proposed system for CS, there's an added layer of C&C where you need to pay careful attention to what your character is going to say.I just don't like the concept in RPGs where players choice can subvert character's established skills/personalty, that is what I most liked in AoD, but I'm probably in the minority.
Exactly as what the proposed system is:My concern is that a highly skilled talker could just pick a lot of dumb arguments and still get through. I propose that your skill unlocks some dialogue options but doesn't affect the success/points.
Imagine that [Barter] check with Dean Domino during Dead Money, where you need to carefully read what kind of characters you're conversing with, and carefully choose your words when you're given the chance to talk. It seems they managed to pull this off with Lorenza in AoD, though sadly I kind of don't see which part exactly, although I honestly really liked that I unlocked Game of Thrones achievement upon giving Lorenza the Magistrate (?) position.The biggest conceptual change is that the tagged lines would now represent an attempt without any guarantees of success. It’s up to the player to read people based on the available info and consider what would work best. You can have two different streetwise lines, for example, one would result in a positive reaction, the other in a negative.
That brings us to the second biggest change. Most lines would no longer lead to success or failures but result in positive and negative reactions, represented numerically. Your skill level would act as modifiers, magnifying positive reactions and reducing the effect of blunders. The final check would tally up the reactions, which will determine whether you’ve succeeded or failed.
In your example you're a humble beggar dealing with an indifferent bureaucrat. There aren't many arguments you can make there and there's nothing you can offer to the bureaucrat, so there's nothing there to react to. He is just delaying the decision, probably because there's some paperwork involved.Not sure I quite like it that way. First, the temptation to reload will be too damn high, at least for me, as I sadly dont have enough time to play it several times, so I ll try to squeeze the most out of one playthrough and if that means savescumming, well, I'm down to it. Second, in adult situations, pretty much nobody tells you yes or no straight away, unless your demands are not entirely unreasonable. For example, I've been pestering my supervisor here in the European Parliament, trying to prolong my stay, trying this approach or that and have yet to receive a straight answer (and no, it's not a guaranteed refusal, I know it as a fact). So I'd much prefer if the results werent immediately evident and instead relied on player's deduction skills and other side factors.Immediately evident. It will be very clear when a person doesn't buy your arguments or bullshit. Nothing over the top, normal reactions.
When you're dealing with a potential client, for example, you have a lot more "tactical" options and you see the reaction right away (so you know when to backtrack and when to push forward). In fact, this reaction is vital and helps you determine the line of attack. It would be nearly impossible to sell anything without it.
I beg your pardon, sirrah? Beggar yourself . He has much to gain, and so do I, and there are others vying for that sweet sweet spot. I didn't say I was craving the window-cleaner vacancy, have I now? So its exactly right attitude for him not to say yes or no, to wait and assess his options and pick the one he can benefit from the most.
As for your second argument, it just reinforces my point, no? Nobody says yes or no in any tactical negotiations straight after you've uttered your first line, nobody is giving away their agenda through immediate reactions and in fact, "I agree" is the last word you'd want to say in talks over a contentious subject. No, you get a hint on what the other party would like to see done the other way, you counter it with your own paradigm, and so on until a consensus has been found. It might be somewhat different in the marketing field, I've never actually sold anything in my life, but I'm relying on my seven year-long attendance & reporting on highest lvl inter-party and inter-state affairs in Brussels. You can hardly find a better place to study negotiations.
Imagine, for argument's sake, that you have to convince that old blood and thunder general to switch or something relatively minor like not sending you into battle (because you're a more of a talker). If he asks why, telling him "War is hell" with a firm handshake and steely gaze won't help him see your point of view better.
I'm talking about situations where you have to convince people to do something they don't want to do (i.e. slowly overcome the resistance and make them see the benefits of your proposal) whereas you're talking about gaining someone's respect or getting a minor boon. Imagine, for argument's sake, that you have to convince that old blood and thunder general to switch or something relatively minor like not sending you into battle (because you're a more of a talker). If he asks why, telling him "War is hell" with a firm handshake and steely gaze won't help him see your point of view better.It's hard to imagine such an approach being successful. When you're trying to convince someone to do what he or she doesn't really want to do, be it signing a contract or making a deal or granting a request or favor, speaking your mind won't get you far. You have to break the resistance and that takes more than few words. At very least the player needs to understand the nature of the argument the character is making.You know i've always wondered why most successful dialogue checks have to be the most verbose, seems to me there's a lot of folk who will respect a stoic who speaks his mind and doesn't spout verbal diarrhea.
Perhaps an anti speech skill, or a perk?
I can imagine a few situations in which a stoic might be heeded more than the verbose: Say we're reporting to a gruff, surly quartermaster to equip ourselves for a dangerous assignment. He might well respect the strong, silent types who barks out. "Phase Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." Demonstrating both knowledge and decisiveness, rather than a more flowery approach or wheedling. Though arguably that could be tied into a combat skill more than dialogue.
Or you could be trying to woo an old blood and thunder general, and a firm handshake and steely gaze might sell you better than more convoluted wordplay. "Only two types of talkers I've ever known boy, conmen and queers! Which one are you?"
As I mentioned several times, the new system was designed for and will kick in lengthy dialogues when you're trying to convince someone to do what he doesn't want to do. That's the key part, that's why lengthy dialogues are necessary because you can't change someone's opinion/position/belief with few words, which in turn is why the new system is necessary. It won't be used when you're asking for minor things or making good impressions or any other quick exchanges. Neanderthal' suggestions belong to the latter category as the gruff quartermaster isn't strongly opposed to you having the right equipment. Such conversations (as well as conversations where lines reflecting your personality are as important as skill-based lines) will be in the game as they already were in AoD.I also love how when he dislikes a suggestion, he turns that idea into the worst possible version that doesnt even make any sense and then says "see, this is so bad we cant have that."
Adding personality responses on top of skill responses would create 10-12 replies and make it too busy and messy. So it's one or the other, unfortunately.But the problem is you dont understand what exactly the Neanderthal is saying. He is talking about some personalities reacting better to specific ways of people expressing themselves, in line with their character and personality traits.
It was a joke, chill.Additionally, in your example, nobody would be able to persuade that general to release a soldier from fighting in a battle no matter what style of dialogue or persuasion is taken.
And I'm not planning on changing it.You did notice a lot of people prefer the style of writing AoD has, which is opposite to TToN style.
Nope. Because you dont need to actually create "10-12" personality responses at all.Adding personality responses on top of skill responses would create 10-12 replies and make it too busy and messy. So it's one or the other, unfortunately.
Yeah, thats the same thing really.And I'm not planning on changing it.
lol.the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.
Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.
Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.
No, you need both intelligence and wisdom to decipher the true meaning of the Unbroken Circle, and persuade the Zerth that you have not just read the words but understand their lesson. A feat which he is extremely sceptical of.
The whole of the dialogues with Dakkon is you trying to shape him to do what you want, - are you really that fucking stupid?You’re still not trying to convince him to do something.
Nobody is talking about "pithy one liners" - MORON. Except you. Because you are that type of dumb hypocrite who cannot make an actual argument so you change the meaning into something completely different to - win.an actual attempt at persuasion—you use a hell of a lot more words, not a pithy one-liner.
Why dont you shoot yourself in the face while youre at it? Eat some glue.In not *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon, you have defeated your own argument.
Neanderthal the unbroken circle of zerthimon example has nothing to do with persuasion, it’s a goddamn pop quiz. You’re not trying to change Dak’kon’s mind, you’re trying to show him that you know how to read.
No, you need both intelligence and wisdom to decipher the true meaning of the Unbroken Circle, and persuade the Zerth that you have not just read the words but understand their lesson. A feat which he is extremely sceptical of.
Sure, it’s a quiz that you can’t pass without the appropriate attributes. You’re still not trying to convince him to do something. He’s already agreed to teach you at that point and already given you the fucking circle.
Funnily enough, when you do eventually get the opportunity to convince Dak’kon that his interpretation of the unbroken circle is wrong later on—an actual attempt at persuasion—you use a hell of a lot more words, not a pithy one-liner. In not *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon, you have defeated your own argument.
Dakkon is broken. He wants to be helped. TNO is acting as his therapist there, essentially. Sure, he wouldn't be able to do it without wisdom and intelligence but Dakkon is a willing participant there, not an actively resisting 'opponent'.The whole of the dialogues with Dakkon is you trying to shape him to do what you want, - are you really that fucking stupid?You’re still not trying to convince him to do something.