[galsiah]

Oh sure - it's just not so easy to find good ways to differentiate the immediate gameplay of dialogue skills. I'm all for looking, and all for using any that make sense. It's just important to bear in mind that having uniform, uninvolved direct gameplay is only a waste if there really are better-and-more-individual mechanisms out there. I'd like to think that there would be, but any such system remains highly abstract, so there are no appeal-to-reality guarantees.

[Saerden]

You completely misunderstood what i was trying to say:

I wasnt praising Civ IV AI personalities, or the means to achieve those. I was saying that gameplay is crucial to characterization (in games).

No offense, but even the "shallow" personalities of Civ IV AI are deeper and more sophisticated then what most RPGs produced, simply because the personalities mattered on a gameplay level.

[Vince]

The way I see it it should go: You tried talkng with the guard but it didn't work because your skill is too low. Now that talking your way through has proven useless, you have to rely on something entirely different, but still related to diplomacy. Something like lie detection, or being able to observe small quirks to exploit, or lore knowledge.

Sounds a bit forced. I work in sales and train other people at how to get through obstacles, which are always numerous. The basic concept is "if one person in an organization said no, find one who'll say yes". Easier said than done in most cases, but that's the idea.

I think your argument that the player will be able to raise one Speech skill too quickly isn't justified, seeing as how you can just make speech checks on a whole more difficult to compensate.

I didn't say too quickly. I said "a single skill is easy to raise". In any game with 8+ skills, it's relatively easy to focus on 2 skills and get them up relatively fast (faster than raising 4-5 skills).

It just seems that having multiple Diplomat skills all rooted in dialogue speech checks is something of a waste.

Waste of what? Following this logic one can arrive to a conclusion that 4 skills is all one needs in an RPG, the rest is waste. Combat, Magic, Thievery, Speech.

There are several issues here. First, a skillset should define your character. If you have a single dialogue skill, then 80% of builds would include it, so suddenly everyone's a talker. Second, like I said, a single skill is easy to raise (unless a game is so stingy with skill points that you have barely enough for one skill, which is absurd), so suddenly everyone is a skilled talker.

So, basically, I can always find enough points to raise an extra skill, especially if it's rewarding, but raising 3+ skills is too much. Raising a single skill is a hobby on the side. Raising 3 skill isn't a hobby, it's a focus.

Anyway, since we're talking about dialogue skills, let's discuss a more important aspect, which you touched very briefly.

The concept of non-combat gameplay is often criticized for being boring. "You raise your dialogue skill(s) and then click on the best lines until you see the "game over" sign", which is a valid complaint. We handled it by avoiding "one spot shopping" and forcing you to evaluate situations and seek alternative dialogue solutions.

Since your criticism is based on the fact that all dialogue skills work the same way, how would you design 3 talking skills that don't work the same way?

[suibhne]

A lack of granularity in skills also has another important effect: limiting the potential interrelationships between skills. Take a really crude example. When you have Intimidate and Persuade broken out as two separate skills, you can code a bonus to Intimidate from high Strength scores. This would make no sense at all for Persuade, tho, so you'd lose the ability to implement that synergy relationship if you only offered one dialogue skill. The fewer skills you have, the fewer potential interactions you can create between different skills or between skills and attributes etc.

[Saerden]

Vince:
Number of skills and cost are two totally different aspects. Only if you assume identical cost. Galsiah doesnt like identical costs!*

*may or may not be actually true.

Extreme example:
100 dialog skills vs 1
If you get 100 SP for a taks, you could raise 100 skills for 1 SP each, in the other system, 1 point would cost 100 SP.

There is nothing wrong in having the talking skill cost more, instead of splitting it into various other skills. Several skills have benefits (graduation) and drawbacks (huge design cost increase)


Suibhine:
Not at all. Morbus, in his initial post, provided a counterexample.
If you a strong, then in a situation where you check dialog skill for intimmidation, you could get a bonus (either lower req to pass, or additional effect).

Very simple example:
1. normal
2. [logical argument] - talk skill + int bonus > X to pass
3. [Threaten violence] - weapon skill + strengthx2 + talk skill / 2 > Y to pass
4. [persuade] - talk skill > z to pass

Different options and consequences for different builds, just one talk skill.

[Vince]

Vince:
Number of skills and cost are two totally different aspects. Only if you assume identical cost. Galsiah doesnt like identical costs!*

*may or may not be actually true.

Extreme example:
100 dialog skills vs 1
If you get 100 SP for a taks, you could raise 100 skills for 1 SP each, in the other system, 1 point would cost 100 SP.

Sounds artificial, no?

[Saerden]

Err - no. It one possible, and good, way to balance things.

In a skill system, not all skills can be created equally. Instead of trying to make then all equal, or worse, not trying, you could adjust the cost.

In a modern setting, lockpicking can never be as good as talking, so you either roll it into a "break and entry" skill, or make it cheap. Otherwise you have a good option and a bad option (this situation is called "no option), or worse, try to plaster the modern setting with mechanical locks.

[Vince]

In a modern setting, lockpicking can never be as good as talking, so you either roll it into a "break and entry" skill, or make it cheap.

Why? It depends on a "theme". In a modern zombie game, it's not an important skill, so it can be easily rolled into Mechanical. In a modern espionage game, for example, it's probably one of the most important skill, so cheap is the last thing it should be. Same goes for any modern criminal or "paranormal investigation" theme.

[Saerden]

Well that was exactly what i was saying.

I was thinking: lockpicking = mechanical locks, modern = electronic locks, digital storage, encryption, surveillance. Picking mechanical locks is a very small part of the "steal stuff" process. We could argue over the interpretation of the setting elements, but that wasnt my point, just a brode, somewhat poignant example.

Wether a skill should be expensive or not depends on the game and the uses the skill has. It doesnt need to be balanced all the time - if magic is rare or weak, you could make it alot more expensive then the actual effect, if you make it clear to the player that mages are not a hybrid swiss knife / howitzer but a different experience.

A shaolin monk may be able to throw a needle through a solid plate of glass after a lifetime of study, but most people rather have 1 month of krav maga and a cheap gun.

[galsiah]

I was saying that gameplay is crucial to characterization (in games).

Ok, but you're too focused on low-level, moment-to-moment gameplay. There is gameplay in analysing the subtleties of an NPC's statements in trying to assess his future (scripted/pre-written) actions or his current knowledge - and in basing PC decisions on the conclusions (in part). There's no programmed game-mechanic to describe this gameplay, but it remains highly significant.

No offense, but even the "shallow" personalities of Civ IV AI are deeper and more sophisticated then what most RPGs produced, simply because the personalities mattered on a gameplay level.

Again, you're ignoring the higher-level implicit gameplay in parsing their statements and making decisions on that basis.
The CivIV AIs lack any sophistication in terms of character/personality - they have only a pretty trivial level of algorithmic 'sophistication'. Naturally their algorithms are more sophisticated (i.e. ever-so-slightly-less-trivial) than the non-existent ones of many RPG NPCs. That's largely irrelevant: any sophistication of RPG NPCs generally comes from the content of their pre-written statements.

E.g. I don't judge the sophistication/characterization of Nines Rodriguez, based on whether he attacks me if I attack him, or his attitude to my running backwards-and-forwards in front of him; nor do I judge it (mostly) based on the amount of different responses he has the potential to make; I judge it based on the particular content of the responses he does make, and his large-scale actions, relative to the world situation.
It's a nice bonus if he reacts convincingly to the low-level stuff; it's a nice bonus if he has many different responses based on many different possible contexts. However, the number-one concern is always the specific content of the response he gives - which has almost nothing to do with algorithmic sophistication, yet almost everything to do with the PC's high-level gameplay decisions.

If you focus only on the low-level, algorithmically-produced aspects of gameplay, you're always going to do a piss-poor job of analysing pre-written dialogue trees: they work almost entirely through the implicit gameplay content of the pre-written statements themselves. In comparing the 'sophistication' of reactive algorithms, you're largely missing the point. Naturally the Civ IV ones are more 'sophisticated', but that's a minor detail (unless the game takes a roguelike/sandbox/procedurally-generated approach).

[bhlaab]

Since your criticism is based on the fact that all dialogue skills work the same way, how would you design 3 talking skills that don't work the same way?

Well, I didn't want to pull this out because it's a bit embarassing, but I've been jotting down a ton of design ideas in my free time in a word document. I'll neve rget around to actually making it because of a complete lack of ability and talent. But then again I suppose everybody on this forum has some stupid game idea stashed away on their hard drive somewhere.

The reason I've taken such an interest in this thread is because one of my primary focuses has been to make the Diplomat build as interesting and varied as, for example, Thief. Many of these have a primary use as dialogue speech-checks, but have opportunities for outside use.

•   Persuasion -- Convince others to follow your advice with either strong arguments or lies.
•   Trade -- Affects buy/sell prices and relationships with merchants.
•   Religion -- Knowledge of the scripture.
•   Streetwise -- The ability to recognize when you are being conned or lied to. Knowledge of general history.
•   Leadership -- Ability to delegate orders among followers

Not really a skill but uses a mixture of persuasion, weapon skill, trade, etc:
•   Holdup Action -- If you catch an NPC alone you can level your weapon at them and demand information, money, and/or service.
Not a skill, but an attribute:
•   Charisma can be a positive integer or negative to mark the distinction between a babyfaced smooth talker and a gruff bastard who can order people around just by grunting.


*clutches heart, prepares to have ideas torn limb from limb*

[Vince]

Well, I didn't want to pull this out because it's a bit embarassing, but I've been jotting down a ton of design ideas in my free time in a word document.

Welcome to the forums, son.

•   Persuasion -- Convince others to follow your advice with either strong arguments or lies.
•   Trade -- Affects buy/sell prices and relationships with merchants.
•   Religion -- Knowledge of the scripture.
•   Streetwise -- The ability to recognize when you are being conned or lied to. Knowledge of general history.
•   Leadership -- Ability to delegate orders among followers

Not really a skill but uses a mixture of persuasion, weapon skill, trade, etc:
•   Holdup Action -- If you catch an NPC alone you can level your weapon at them and demand information, money, and/or service.
Not a skill, but an attribute:
•   Charisma can be a positive integer or negative to mark the distinction between a babyfaced smooth talker and a gruff bastard who can order people around just by grunting.

*clutches heart, prepares to have ideas torn limb from limb*

Nothing to criticize, really, as what you have is very similar to what we have in AoD. Replace Religion with Lore, get rid of Leadership because we don't have a party member, and replace Holdup Action with Intimidate, which isn't a skill but a combination of body count and weapon skills.

[Exyll]

This is all well and good but my problem with dialogue skills is that in most games to have a 'smooth talker'  means sacrificing in somewhere else and that somewhere is usally in combat. Best example of this is in PS:T. That game is very conversation-heavy and to be able to unlock all the all the conversation options you needed a ludicrously high Cha skill.

[bhlaab]

This is all well and good but my problem with dialogue skills is that in most games to have a 'smooth talker'  means sacrificing in somewhere else and that somewhere is usally in combat. Best example of this is in PS:T. That game is very conversation-heavy and to be able to unlock all the all the conversation options you needed a ludicrously high Cha skill.

Well.... yeah.
That's the point of player stats isn't it? Give and take? Apprentice of all trades, master of none? Open one door, close four behind you? And all sorts of other platitudes?

[Vahhabyte]

Ahh, this one cracked me up completely  


PS: For those who don't know this, it's merely a joke picture from a fake funny "Age Of Decadence Online" interview: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=193