Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 73   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Let's play AoD!  (Read 566716 times)
Jedi_Learner
Artisan

Posts: 632



View Profile
« Reply #735 on: March 10, 2008, 10:13:37 am »

Quote from: screeg
What does it add to dialogue spelling out the different stat/profession checks?

It looks pretty. Grin
Logged

I'd like to take a moment here and address the issue of expectations. There is nothing revolutionary or evolutionary about AoD. I hope it will be a good game, nothing else.
Claw
*
Posts: 315


Adun Toridas!


View Profile
« Reply #736 on: March 10, 2008, 05:07:40 pm »

What does it add to dialogue spelling out the different stat/profession checks?
It makes it perfectly clear what that option means.

Quote
Maybe this is something that's just included out of habit because every other RPG does it...
Are you kidding? Nothing done "just because" in this game. I wasn't aware that "every other RPG" does this, either.
Logged
cardtrick
Artisan

Posts: 553



View Profile
« Reply #737 on: March 10, 2008, 05:13:14 pm »

I like visible skillchecks.
Logged
Scott
Developer

Posts: 2393



View Profile
« Reply #738 on: March 10, 2008, 05:34:55 pm »

I'm shocked that a crowd like this which is so dead against "handholding" wants to hang on to these signifiers.  I mean, if the dialogue is well written (which so far it obviously is), the little [] are unnecessary.  I think they're an unwelcome distraction.

A good question to ask of any feature is "What does it add?"  I don't think they add anything, except to remind everyone of the skills mechanic behind the scenes and make what you're doing less like a conversation and more like a series of die rolls.
Logged

contributed to: Age of Decadence | Dead State | Dungeon Rats | Battle Brothers | Fell Seal:Arbiter's Mark
working on: Colony Ship RPG | Stygian:Reign of the Old Ones | Encased | ATOM RPG | Sin Slayers
Morbus
Expert

Posts: 1068


Wastelander


View Profile WWW
« Reply #739 on: March 10, 2008, 05:54:07 pm »

Quote
Maybe this is something that's just included out of habit because every other RPG does it...
Are you kidding? Nothing done "just because" in this game. I wasn't aware that "every other RPG" does this, either.
Actually, he may be right. It's something I thought about at one point and was going to ask here, but now that he talks about it, it really makes sense. Invisible skill checks are good to improve player interaction in dialogs, lift them to the point where combat stands, and its player interaction. Vince has talked about this, I don't know where. When people have a successful skill check, they tend to choose that option and not the other ones. By hiding the skill bound you give them the choice, and make them guess if you did pass the skill check and stuff...

Vince, is this something you'd consider? Hiding the skill checks?
Logged

Fosse
Craftsman

Posts: 286


View Profile
« Reply #740 on: March 10, 2008, 07:56:29 pm »

Does the appearance of [Intimidate] at the top of a line indicate that this skill will be checked for failure or success upon selection of this option, that a check of this skill was already successfully made, or an either/or combination of those two options?

I have given this some consideration and would like to see skill tags removed from dialogue, and instead see some text after a successful or failed attempt that makes it clear which skill was checked and, if possible, the degree to which I blew it or succeeded.

So:

1. "Some flowery text that obviously appeals to the NPC's vanity."
2. "Some thing tough sounding," while brandishing some weapon, "and a casual mention of friends."

instead of:

1. [Persuade] "Why bother reading this?"
2. [Intimidate] "You get the gist."

The moment the second screen pops up my brain will see the tags and bias me towards a decision based on what I know my skills to be.  In Fallout I would sometimes choose something that sounded like a skill check, even if I might fail it, because the dialogue was written so well that it's what I wanted my character to say, or avoid a skillcheck that I'd probably make because the text didn't jive with my character.  So I like the first option better.  I don't see why the dialogue choices shouldn't be clear enough to avoid tags.

But to provide the nice meta-game feedback, it'd be great after choosing a line with an (unmarked) intimidate check to see some text indicating that I not only passed my skill check, but was so awesome at it that I could have skated by with half the score.

to wit:

He's clearly taken aback by your words, and suddenly can't take his eyes off of the dagger tucked into your belt.  You get the impression a small girl shouting "boo" would have sent this coward into full retreat.  "Perhaps we can cut a deal," he stammers.

or:

Clearly, she's flattered by your words, but after a moment's hesitation seems to regain her composure.  "Very kind... but you still have to pay me.  I'm sorry, I'd change the rules if I could."

In the first case I get the same gameplay reward of making a critical strike to one hit kill somebody.  In the second I get the feedback that I'm charming, but I need to concentrate there a little more on this skill if I want to get by with it.

With simple [tags] there isn't feedback on whether you're skill was overkill or you would have no chance three levels from now.  Obviously, that feedback could be added after tags, but it can also be added without them and as they are themselves distracting and a touch handholding I'd just as soon see them go.
Logged
galsiah
Expert

Posts: 1415



View Profile
« Reply #741 on: March 10, 2008, 08:07:40 pm »

There are clearly arguments on both sides. I think the best approach depends on context, and of course how well it's all handled.
As to the idea that Vince hasn't thought about it, the evidence suggests otherwise.


One quick point on this: many of the pro-removal arguments hinge on the idea that it will somehow be obvious which stats are being checked. In some cases this will be so, but in general it clearly isn't. In this thread and others there have been borderline cases where different stat checks are arguable for the same line. I'm not sure it's worth the loss in clarity to eliminate the indicators - since the checks used will frequently be somewhat contentious.
[[If the system used a continuous range of checks based on each situation, so that one case might involve a check of e.g. 0.3 * streetwise + 0.4 * persuasion + 0.2 * intelligence + 0.1 * etiquette, I'd be in favour of eliminating the indicators: in this case the player would be certain that relevant stats would always be at least somewhat useful. As it stands, this isn't the case, and it's usually (always??) a one-stat all-or-nothing check. This is neither entirely clear, intuitive, or realistic - so the stat indicators should stay.
If the system is to be entirely in the background, it needs to make intuitive sense in all cases - and will therefore need to involve combinations of many stats. If it's to remain clear-cut and simple, it needs to stay in the player's face]]

EDIT: I'd probably prefer the weighted-many-stat-checks without the indicators, but this would mean reworking every check in the game. Of course it wouldn't need to be a linear combination of stats - any reasonable function of multiple stats could be used, potentially taking into account complementary/redundant/counter-productive effects.
However, getting such a system to work reasonably, be balanced, and feel consistent, would be non-trivial.

That said, I don't think it's an absurd thing to consider (stat checks are a pretty isolated feature, so a system could be reworked without unwanted knock-on effects) - particularly given Vince's less-than-impressed attitude of 2004.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2008, 08:19:51 pm by galsiah » Logged
Fosse
Craftsman

Posts: 286


View Profile
« Reply #742 on: March 10, 2008, 08:28:38 pm »

Quote
EDIT: I'd probably prefer the weighted-many-stat-checks without the indicators

Me too.  That several skill checks could more elegantly be made without "moron tags," as Vince put it, was a point I originally thought of and then cleverly left out of my post.  But the idea you have for having such checks essentially be behind any dialogue choice that would call for a check is great.  Some choices would obviously be much more about streetwise than about persuasion, but if you're extremely gifted at the latter then you might get by anyhow.  It lets us craft our character's personality a bit more finely and gives us more routes to similar solutions. 
Logged
Lainestin
*
Posts: 199



View Profile
« Reply #743 on: March 10, 2008, 09:17:08 pm »

If the dialogue is well written and makes sense, the tags are unnecessary. I'd prefer that the dialogue options didn't have the tags, but I don't mind it either way. Having the tags saves you from having to read what you're saying.
Logged
cardtrick
Artisan

Posts: 553



View Profile
« Reply #744 on: March 10, 2008, 09:48:45 pm »

If the dialogue is well written and makes sense, the tags are unnecessary.

That's a gross oversimplification. Dialog can be well written but still depend on context for meaning. In fact, good dialog will often be a little ambiguous, since people rarely explain all of their intentions and meanings out loud when a simple contextual clue or facial expression would do.

Consider the line "Let's find another way." In the dialog Vince posted, this was meant literally, as a request to find another way. However, consider these alternatives:

[Intimidate] "Let's find another way."  <-- In this case it's assumed that your body language is projecting a threat; you're trying to intimidate Feng.

[Persuasion] "Let's find another way." <-- Here you're wheedling, even begging, trying to play on his sympathies (remember you just told you don't have any money).

[Attack] "Let's find another way." <-- And here it's just flavor text, your witty quip as you launch your attack.

There are countless other examples in which it wouldn't make sense to add more to the dialog line, yet the meaning is ambiguous without something like a bracketed descriptor. Anyway, it's not like they're unrealistic or immersion-breaking or whatever -- just think of them as intentions. When you say something, you always know what you mean and how you're saying it; similarly, the player should know what his character means, how he's delivering his lines, and what skills he's trying to use.
Logged
Dr.Strangelove
Novice

Posts: 41



View Profile
« Reply #745 on: March 10, 2008, 10:33:35 pm »

I don't like Feng stopping the player at the last moment before leaving, too, because he seems like treating a matter his career depends on as a petty errand he almost forgot about.

I disagree on this point.  Bringing up a life-and-death matter as if it's of little consequence could be an oratorical strategy.  If you're about to negotiate a price for an assassination, the last thing you want to do is start weeping about how your life would be ruined by the competition and how you'll do absolutely anything to off this guy.  In addition, maybe Feng knows 10 different ways to deal with the new guy and just thought he'd toss one out while you were conveniently nearby.
That oratorical strategy would be naive and counter-productive. The effort of the employee is more often than not proportional to expectations of the employer. Trivializing an important issue leads to inadequate solutions. Anyway, Feng's dissimulation is not credible as what is in stake for him is obvious to the PC by the nature and object of the task assigned. He should be smarter. 
Quote
I had another off-the-cuff thought:  why not drop the [skill check] from the dialogue lines altogether?  If the PC is offered the chance to threaten somebody, it's evident you'll be checking Intimidation, right?  What does it add to dialogue spelling out the different stat/profession checks?  Maybe this is something that's just included out of habit because every other RPG does it...
I think Cardtrick has a point on this matter. Dropping the tags may lead to less clarity and convoluted dialog: too much descriptive gibberish might be needed in lieu of the tagged "intentions"(as Cardtrick elegantly defined them). I'm not saying to keep tags at all costs, but sometimes "better" is the enemy of "good".
Logged
galsiah
Expert

Posts: 1415



View Profile
« Reply #746 on: March 10, 2008, 10:48:21 pm »

I made a new thread on this issue. Please take it outside Smile.

[[[quick note here:
@cardtrick - agreed in general, but I think there are ways to illustrate intention more elegantly where it's not clear; e.g. the inner-voice descriptions I proposed for the [truth]/[lie] indicators earlier. Bear in mind that clarity is only one issue here - the other is the encouragement to metagame based on the reasonable assumption that skill-check lines are often superior. This isn't an issue with the [truth]/[lie] indicators, so I'd say that it's a more reasonable goal to want to eliminate a [Persuasion] than to eliminate a [truth]. [Persuasion]-as-indication-of-PC-intention is fine; [Persuasion]-as-indication-that-the-only-skill-to-be-used-now-is-Persuasion sucks (to an extent).]]]
Logged
Jedi_Learner
Artisan

Posts: 632



View Profile
« Reply #747 on: March 11, 2008, 09:42:12 am »

The game sure has changed. lol
Logged

I'd like to take a moment here and address the issue of expectations. There is nothing revolutionary or evolutionary about AoD. I hope it will be a good game, nothing else.
Oscar
Developer

Posts: 6739


AoD Lead Artist


View Profile
« Reply #748 on: March 11, 2008, 09:59:49 am »

You call THAT a change? Wink
Logged

"Hasta la victoria, siempre."

"Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have it?"
Jedi_Learner
Artisan

Posts: 632



View Profile
« Reply #749 on: March 11, 2008, 10:53:02 am »

I would of raised you a 2D screenshot Oscar, but Imageshack seem to be deleting old images from their database. Sad
Logged

I'd like to take a moment here and address the issue of expectations. There is nothing revolutionary or evolutionary about AoD. I hope it will be a good game, nothing else.
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 73   Go Up
Print
Jump to: