Dialogue mechanics in cRPGs

[gerey]

Having recently replayed Bloodlines, it struck me that the game has, what amounts to 4 to 5 color-coded persuasion options. You have the blue Persuade, Seduction, Intimidation, Dominate and a smattering of other skill/attribute related dialogue options.

While the main four dialogue options are nice to have from a LARPing perspective, they ultimately all boil down to the same thing, they're an obvious "I WIN" button that the player can safely press without much thought or reading involved to achieve the best possible outcome. This is doubly true for Persuasion, which is nearly always the best choice to pick.

Granted, Bloodlines sometimes throws a neat twist into this mechanic, in the sense that the dialogue skillcheck is merely a gate for additional dialogue options, through which you can ultimately determine the outcome of a given quest.

So, my question is, which RPGs do get creative in how they handle dialogue choices and skillchecks, which are the ones that separate a skillcheck from deciding the outcome of a quest? Alternatively, which cRPGs do you feel handle dialogue and dialogue choices the best? Which are the ones that avoid the pitfall of making skillcheck dialogue automatically the best option to pick, or ones that avoid making the speech skill (or equivalent) a must-have?

[1998]

Didn't we just recently have this topic in some other thread?

Anyway, I prefer to keep it simple, no need to get creative here. No highlights, no open skill checks, even after my choice I do not want to be informed whether or not I made the "ideal" choice. Just let me pick the line without any influence and show me the consequences in-game, not in the dialogue window.

So obviously Fallout 1 > Fallout 3/4

[wndrbr]

I remember replaying VTMB as a seductive female ventrue and always trying to pick the pink option to see the difference in dialogues. During the Giovanni mansion segment some vampire lady got seriously offended and called me a **** lol

[Oyster Sauce]

I liked the system where two players fought over who made decisions in D:OS.
BG3 bizarrely didn't let you switch to companions or other players during conversations even though any character can speak to any NPC. If the tanky fighter who stands at the front of the formation triggers a scene with a snarling wolf, the druid and ranger can do nothing but watch as the fighter fails to communicate and the wolf attacks.

[wndrbr]

So, my question is, which RPGs do get creative in how they handle dialogue choices and skillchecks,

[Dorateen]

The greatest innovation to the branching dialogue, multiple responses approach was the Party Chat system introduced in Storm of Zehir. Where different conversation options for the player are displayed based on character attribute conditions, and only available for those characters. Different party members could select these tailored responses, so each character could contribute in a way that made them stand out as an individual in the group.

[Oldtimer]

The greatest innovation to the branching dialogue, multiple responses approach was the Party Chat system introduced in Storm of Zehir. Where different conversation options for the player are displayed based on character attribute conditions, and only available for those characters. Different party members could select these tailored responses, so each character could contribute in a way that made them stand out as an individual in the group.

Yes! I was thinking about it myself, but since I have been in the editor for NWN2, I can say that stuff was labor-intensive and hard to keep track of all the possible ways a character could influence the outcome - and you also have to prioritize: is it more important to roll a Diplomacy check or that my character is a half-elf male with Cha 8?

[Havitner]

So, my question is, which RPGs do get creative in how they handle dialogue choices and skillchecks,

I didn't even mind the Oblivion disposition wheel minigame. It was a fun-ish diversion that gave you the chance to score some quick endorphin skillups even in town.

Of course it was completely undermined by the fact that improving an NPCs disposition was a complete waste of time. In the very few situations where it mattered, you could just use bribes or Charm spells/scrolls to get dispo above the (usually pretty low) requirement to buy a house or see an extra dialogue line or whatever.

Alternatively, which cRPGs do you feel handle dialogue and dialogue choices the best?

I've never actually played any games that use it, but a feature I saw a glimpse of in a Starfield review video seemed interesting. Basically, some dialogue options are actually your companion speaking.

"I found the files you were looking for. Now hand over the hostage."
"You sent me into an ambush, *******!"
[Chunks McSmash] "Haha! Lots of humies to kill at factory!"

I can see this approach being particularly useful in low- to mid-budget games where you don't have the time and resources to create elaborate, flowing conversations that dynamically include whichever companions happen to be present.
Instead, it's still a normal, straightforward one-on-one conversation, just with the player optionally speaking through one of his companions sometimes.

[maidenhaver]

I think dialogue should be sparse. There are only a few places "dialogues" should happen, and that's between stupid, yacking orcs, wizards casting spells over each other, real ***** hours in your camp, or in a court.

[Oldtimer]

I think dialogue should be sparse. There are only a few places "dialogues" should happen, and that's between stupid, yacking orcs, wizards casting spells over each other, real ***** hours in your camp, or in a court.

I have to disagree - party banter is what makes both the game and the companions alive, and the companions more than soldiers in a squad, so the more the better. That said, it is important to pinpoint when this banter should take place, and combat is of course not one of those moments.

[1998]

I think dialogue should be sparse. There are only a few places "dialogues" should happen, and that's between stupid, yacking orcs, wizards casting spells over each other, real ***** hours in your camp, or in a court.

I have to disagree - party banter is what makes both the game and the companions alive, and the companions more than soldiers in a squad, so the more the better. That said, it is important to pinpoint when this banter should take place, and combat is of course not one of those moments.

Disagree, this always leads to writers taking over the game. Dialogue/Banter shouldn't be more than flavor, something minor that always takes a back seat to the actual game.

[A Chinese opium den]

I think dialogue should be sparse. There are only a few places "dialogues" should happen, and that's between stupid, yacking orcs, wizards casting spells over each other, real ***** hours in your camp, or in a court.

Wizard duels are never treated with respect anymore, makes me angry. You should be shot to death if you write marvel quippy dialogue into a wizard fight.

[maidenhaver]

I think dialogue should be sparse. There are only a few places "dialogues" should happen, and that's between stupid, yacking orcs, wizards casting spells over each other, real ***** hours in your camp, or in a court.

Wizard duels are never treated with respect anymore, makes me angry. You should be shot to death if you write marvel quippy dialogue into a wizard fight.

Spells are dialogue, is what I meant.

[maidenhaver]

Spellcasting is wordsmithing.

[Oldtimer]

I think dialogue should be sparse. There are only a few places "dialogues" should happen, and that's between stupid, yacking orcs, wizards casting spells over each other, real ***** hours in your camp, or in a court.

I have to disagree - party banter is what makes both the game and the companions alive, and the companions more than soldiers in a squad, so the more the better. That said, it is important to pinpoint when this banter should take place, and combat is of course not one of those moments.

Disagree, this always leads to writers taking over the game. Dialogue/Banter shouldn't be more than flavor, something minor that always takes a back seat to the actual game.

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

[maidenhaver]

Keep it at the camp.

[1998]

I have to disagree - party banter is what makes both the game and the companions alive, and the companions more than soldiers in a squad, so the more the better. That said, it is important to pinpoint when this banter should take place, and combat is of course not one of those moments.

Disagree, this always leads to writers taking over the game. Dialogue/Banter shouldn't be more than flavor, something minor that always takes a back seat to the actual game.

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

Armies of writers with no real game dev experience whatsoever is one big reason why modern gaming sucks

[rusty_shackleford]

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

You can have a good RPG with very little writing, but adding bad writing will always make an RPG worse.

[Acrux]

I have to disagree - party banter is what makes both the game and the companions alive, and the companions more than soldiers in a squad, so the more the better. That said, it is important to pinpoint when this banter should take place, and combat is of course not one of those moments.

Disagree, this always leads to writers taking over the game. Dialogue/Banter shouldn't be more than flavor, something minor that always takes a back seat to the actual game.

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

Only you and Sawyer think that Wizardry isn't an rpg.

[Oldtimer]

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

You can have a good RPG with very little writing, but adding bad writing will always make an RPG worse.

How do you make an RPG with 'very little writing'? That's not an RPG, that's a hack n slash at best.

[rusty_shackleford]

How do you make an RPG with 'very little writing'? That's not an RPG, that's a hack n slash at best.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

[Oldtimer]

Disagree, this always leads to writers taking over the game. Dialogue/Banter shouldn't be more than flavor, something minor that always takes a back seat to the actual game.

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

Armies of writers with no real game dev experience whatsoever is one big reason why modern gaming sucks

I don't think it's the lack of experience in game development that is the problem, but more the lack of actual writing experience or for that matter talent. A good writer will be able to write a good story - his ability or skill in doing it in the game format may indeed suck, but that's what the management is there for to correct.

[Oldtimer]

How do you make an RPG with 'very little writing'? That's not an RPG, that's a hack n slash at best.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

I haven't played it. And you had to go to a 40 year old game... Also, could you elaborate on this, why its an RPG with little writing?

[Norfleet]

... You do know that it is the writers that make or break an RPG, right? Sure, party banter is flavor, but flavor is **** important.

I would think it's the engineers that make or break an RPG. If the RPG doesn't explode when it's supposed to or explodes when isn't supposed to, this is doubleplusungood. Merely being poorly written will not make or break the RPG quite like technical failure will.

[rusty_shackleford]

How do you make an RPG with 'very little writing'? That's not an RPG, that's a hack n slash at best.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

I haven't played it. And you had to go to a 40 year old game... Also, could you elaborate on this, why its an RPG with little writing?

Wizardry is the progenitor* of computer RPGs, any definition of RPG that fails to include Wizardry is not a valid definition of RPG. It would be like a definition of FPS that excludes Doom.


* — There are precursors, but they were only available to a very select few that had access to mainframe computers.

[maidenhaver]

You can't have an rpg without a story, because the story unfolds from gameplay, but you can have great rpgs without banter, or personalities. Ample characterization is delivered through your character sheets, or a party member's class, without the need for dialogues. The character-driven rpg that hangs on dialogues is just one style.

[1998]

How do you make an RPG with 'very little writing'? That's not an RPG, that's a hack n slash at best.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

I haven't played it. And you had to go to a 40 year old game... Also, could you elaborate on this, why its an RPG with little writing?

Do you consider Disco an RPG?

[Irenaeus]

How do you make an RPG with 'very little writing'? That's not an RPG, that's a hack n slash at best.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

I haven't played it. And you had to go to a 40 year old game...

Calls himself "oldtimer"... hasn't played arguably the most classical oldschool RPG of all time... doesn't even recognize it.
Consider a name change?

[Oldtimer]

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

I haven't played it. And you had to go to a 40 year old game... Also, could you elaborate on this, why its an RPG with little writing?

Do you consider Disco an RPG?

I do - in fact I'm playing it right now. Why?

[Oldtimer]

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1209/wiz ... -overlord/

I haven't played it. And you had to go to a 40 year old game...

Calls himself "oldtimer"... hasn't played arguably the most classical oldschool RPG of all time... doesn't even recognize it.
Consider a name change?

Back then, there were tons of games, and they were released a lot faster than now - the first RPG I played was Bard's Tale back in the late 80's, so sorry, I didn't have time for them all and I didn't know I had to play Wizardry to get into a snobby club 40 years later. Back off will you?