Dialogue mechanics in cRPGs

[1998]

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?

Had the hunch you are more interested in visual novels or adventure games. They indeed do need a story.

[Xenich]

With AI chat engines, there is no reason we can't go back to command line interfaces for NPC interaction.

I think I already mentioned this in the other dialogue thread, but I really think that this is very possible to develop these days, and much easier than many might think. I think it would be as simple as a writer would do in creating characters, backstory, etc... then limit the AI character to a certain directive, basic core knowledge (ie constraints on who, what, where, level of knowledge, etc...) and then let them operate within those constraints. Sure, there would be some experimentation and tuning, but once the basic structure of the chat engine is in place and the templates are assigned, the characters would be alive and fully interactive.

The problem, no major company is going to do this because they all want to market to consoles and yet again... consoles will limit game design potential and force us into another decade or so of ******** dialogue wheels and simplistic multiple choice options.

Something I have always wanted to do is create an adventure game like space quest, kings quest, Zork, etc... I have wanted to do this since grammar, spellcheck and writing programs started to become more complex (ie being able to note "intended" structure of the writer in spelling, grammar, etc...) as I always believed that those games lost a lot of the mystery and investigation play when they implemented "hunt and peck" systems.

AI is a huge leap in this capability and I think it would be amazing to see it implemented into even a simple text or limited graphics engine game (similar to Wizardry 7 or the like).

Unfortunately I have too many other world projects I have to attend to, so all I am able to do is come up with lots of ideas on things that I never find the time to get around to doing. /sigh

[Irenaeus]

With AI chat engines, there is no reason we can't go back to command line interfaces for NPC interaction.

(didn't read the rest)

[Xenich]

With AI chat engines, there is no reason we can't go back to command line interfaces for NPC interaction.

(didn't read the rest)

Honestly you don't need to, anyone who has experienced the wonder of that era knows what was lost and what is possible with modern tech concerning it.

[Oldtimer]

Do you consider Disco an RPG?

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

Had the hunch you are more interested in visual novels or adventure games. They indeed do need a story.

Hm. Not really no - I consider the RPGS Baldurs Gate 2 and 1 in that order to be the best games ever, and I really loved Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bard's Tale, Rogue Trader and several others, but I wouldn't call them visual novels - and neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks among other things - and all of those are very heavily reliant on their stories. The Walking Dead however, as well as I guess Life is Strange were more of visual novels, also reliant on the stories, but the gameplay is way less important.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Diablo to be an RPG?

[Irenaeus]

With AI chat engines, there is no reason we can't go back to command line interfaces for NPC interaction.

(didn't read the rest)

Honestly you don't need to, anyone who has experienced the wonder of that era knows what was lost and what is possible with modern tech concerning it.

The era of command line interfaces? I was a kid in the 80s so only a little but it sure helped me learn to read and write engrish (I'm ESL).

[1998]

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

Had the hunch you are more interested in visual novels or adventure games. They indeed do need a story.

Hm. Not really no - I consider the RPGS Baldurs Gate 2 and 1 in that order to be the best games ever, and I really loved Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bard's Tale, Rogue Trader and several others, but I wouldn't call them visual novels - and neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks among other things - and all of those are very heavily reliant on their stories. The Walking Dead however, as well as I guess Life is Strange were more of visual novels, also reliant on the stories, but the gameplay is way less important.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Diablo to be an RPG?

Never liked them, never played them. But I suppose they are RPGs.

Disco however is an adventure game. No combat (outside dialogue) -> not an RPG. To me it's just wild to say that story is an essential part of any RPG while combat is not.

Oh, and BG > BG2 obviously

[Xenich]

(didn't read the rest)

Honestly you don't need to, anyone who has experienced the wonder of that era knows what was lost and what is possible with modern tech concerning it.

The era of command line interfaces? I was a kid in the 80s so only a little but it sure helped me learn to read and write engrish (I'm ESL).

Yes, text based input for adventure games. "Look tree, take sword, speak to man about wizard, etc...". Limited at the time, but the player had to think and initiate the dialogue as opposed to moving a mouse around the screen and clicking.

Imagine if games like EQ actually understood what you were getting at like a normal human would even though maybe you didn't specifically phrase it correctly. Think of a character acting human like while you ask them questions about various things concerning a quest line you are investigating. It wouldn't offer more information than a normal conversation would that was controlled by the player as opposed to games these days which have to present the information upfront and let you choose the correct line of investigation.

With the complexity of AI, you could have some real interesting discussion, investigation, and depth to a games "quests" and story.

[Irenaeus]

neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks

This is a Visual Novel that relies on skill checks. Unlike Disco Communism, it's well written.

[Irenaeus]

Honestly you don't need to, anyone who has experienced the wonder of that era knows what was lost and what is possible with modern tech concerning it.

The era of command line interfaces? I was a kid in the 80s so only a little but it sure helped me learn to read and write engrish (I'm ESL).

Yes, text based input for adventure games. "Look tree, take sword, speak to man about wizard, etc...". Limited at the time, but the player had to think and initiate the dialogue as opposed to moving a mouse around the screen and clicking.

With the complexity of AI, you could have some real interesting discussion, investigation, and depth to a games "quests" and story.

There are already a lot of "AI" programs that offer this type of choose your own adventure type of game in the market. Have you checked them out? I haven't but maybe someone here has and can recommend one (or many).

[Xenich]

Had the hunch you are more interested in visual novels or adventure games. They indeed do need a story.

Hm. Not really no - I consider the RPGS Baldurs Gate 2 and 1 in that order to be the best games ever, and I really loved Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bard's Tale, Rogue Trader and several others, but I wouldn't call them visual novels - and neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks among other things - and all of those are very heavily reliant on their stories. The Walking Dead however, as well as I guess Life is Strange were more of visual novels, also reliant on the stories, but the gameplay is way less important.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Diablo to be an RPG?

Never liked them, never played them. But I suppose they are RPGs.

Disco however is an adventure game. No combat (outside dialogue) -> not an RPG. To me it's just wild to say that story is an essential part of any RPG while combat is not.

Oh, and BG > BG2 obviously

Kind of... I always looked at RPGs core as being the development of the character and that development being required for the character to succeed in the game (ie stats that are modified by the player through choice in selection and those are used as statistical tests to succeed in various encounters with that success being dependent on how the player applies the choices they made in that development.

In that respect, a game that is entirely dialogue can still be an RPG as the only thing that is really different is that instead of combat roles with attributes/skills related to physical capabilities being developed and tested, it is attributes/skills related to dialogues (ie intelligence/charisma and guile, eloquent speech, street smarts, etc..) being developed and tested.

So while not traditional elements common to RPGs, the basic mechanics, progression and play is really the same, just presented in a different form.

[Xenich]

The era of command line interfaces? I was a kid in the 80s so only a little but it sure helped me learn to read and write engrish (I'm ESL).

Yes, text based input for adventure games. "Look tree, take sword, speak to man about wizard, etc...". Limited at the time, but the player had to think and initiate the dialogue as opposed to moving a mouse around the screen and clicking.

With the complexity of AI, you could have some real interesting discussion, investigation, and depth to a games "quests" and story.

There are already a lot of "AI" programs that offer this type of choose your own adventure type of game in the market. Have you checked them out? I haven't but maybe someone here has and can recommend one (or many).

Actually I haven't. Did a brief search and came up with AI dungeon? Is that what you are talking about?

https://aidungeon.com/

[1998]

Hm. Not really no - I consider the RPGS Baldurs Gate 2 and 1 in that order to be the best games ever, and I really loved Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bard's Tale, Rogue Trader and several others, but I wouldn't call them visual novels - and neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks among other things - and all of those are very heavily reliant on their stories. The Walking Dead however, as well as I guess Life is Strange were more of visual novels, also reliant on the stories, but the gameplay is way less important.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Diablo to be an RPG?

Never liked them, never played them. But I suppose they are RPGs.

Disco however is an adventure game. No combat (outside dialogue) -> not an RPG. To me it's just wild to say that story is an essential part of any RPG while combat is not.

Oh, and BG > BG2 obviously

Kind of... I always looked at RPGs core as being the development of the character and that development being required for the character to succeed in the game (ie stats that are modified by the player through choice in selection and those are used as statistical tests to succeed in various encounters with that success being dependent on how the player applies the choices they made in that development.

In that respect, a game that is entirely dialogue can still be an RPG as the only thing that is really different is that instead of a combat roles with attributes/skills related to physical capabilities being developed and tested, it is attributes/skills related to dialogues (ie intelligence/charisma and guile, eloquent speech, street smarts, etc..) being developed and tested.

So while not traditional elements common to RPGs, the basic mechanics, progression and play is really the same, just presented in a different form.

Nah, if all it takes are skill checks/progression than a lot of games post ~ 2010 are RPGs. @Irenaeus just mentioned a great example of that. Sir Brante is a really good game, but not an RPG.

[Xenich]

Never liked them, never played them. But I suppose they are RPGs.

Disco however is an adventure game. No combat (outside dialogue) -> not an RPG. To me it's just wild to say that story is an essential part of any RPG while combat is not.

Oh, and BG > BG2 obviously

Kind of... I always looked at RPGs core as being the development of the character and that development being required for the character to succeed in the game (ie stats that are modified by the player through choice in selection and those are used as statistical tests to succeed in various encounters with that success being dependent on how the player applies the choices they made in that development.

In that respect, a game that is entirely dialogue can still be an RPG as the only thing that is really different is that instead of a combat roles with attributes/skills related to physical capabilities being developed and tested, it is attributes/skills related to dialogues (ie intelligence/charisma and guile, eloquent speech, street smarts, etc..) being developed and tested.

So while not traditional elements common to RPGs, the basic mechanics, progression and play is really the same, just presented in a different form.

Nah, if all it takes are skill checks/progression than a lot of games post ~ 2010 are RPGs. @Irenaeus just mentioned a great example of that. Sir Brante is a really good game, but not an RPG.

Well, the waters get "murky" due to it. I think we had a discussion a while back about "what is an RPG" and people differed on it.

I see your point, but I am trying to break it down to the key aspect. If we hold to combat as you mentioned, the difference between a dialogue skill check and combat is the sequence of progression correct? So, in physical combat it is a statistical test of your development choices applied tactically over a period of time to defeat the encounter correct?

Would then a similar progression of skill checks based on mental skills as I mentioned above over a course of rounds (similar to how a combat engine would work) then meet that criteria?

For instance, instead of a simple dialogue check... there are numerous statistical tests for success and failure applied in the encounter (instead of a sword swinging, it is tactical use of conversation skills and the like which provide progression to an ultimate success or failure based on the application of the skills as well as their random success in the dice rolls).

So the "combat" encounter turns into a progression of discussion tactics using the elements of logical argument, influenced by various attributes for weight and the like.

In the end, it would function almost identical to a traditional combat encounter, but the tools would be conversational.

Would you call that an RPG?

[Irenaeus]

Yes, text based input for adventure games. "Look tree, take sword, speak to man about wizard, etc...". Limited at the time, but the player had to think and initiate the dialogue as opposed to moving a mouse around the screen and clicking.

With the complexity of AI, you could have some real interesting discussion, investigation, and depth to a games "quests" and story.

There are already a lot of "AI" programs that offer this type of choose your own adventure type of game in the market. Have you checked them out? I haven't but maybe someone here has and can recommend one (or many).

Actually I haven't. Did a brief search and came up with AI dungeon? Is that what you are talking about?

https://aidungeon.com/

There are so many, NovelAI is another example.

[1998]

Kind of... I always looked at RPGs core as being the development of the character and that development being required for the character to succeed in the game (ie stats that are modified by the player through choice in selection and those are used as statistical tests to succeed in various encounters with that success being dependent on how the player applies the choices they made in that development.

In that respect, a game that is entirely dialogue can still be an RPG as the only thing that is really different is that instead of a combat roles with attributes/skills related to physical capabilities being developed and tested, it is attributes/skills related to dialogues (ie intelligence/charisma and guile, eloquent speech, street smarts, etc..) being developed and tested.

So while not traditional elements common to RPGs, the basic mechanics, progression and play is really the same, just presented in a different form.

Nah, if all it takes are skill checks/progression than a lot of games post ~ 2010 are RPGs. @Irenaeus just mentioned a great example of that. Sir Brante is a really good game, but not an RPG.

Well, the waters get "murky" due to it. I think we had a discussion a while back about "what is an RPG" and people differed on it.

I see your point, but I am trying to break it down to the key aspect. If we hold to combat as you mentioned, the difference between a dialogue skill check and combat is the sequence of progression correct? So, in physical combat it is a statistical test of your development choices applied tactically over a period of time to defeat the encounter correct?

Would then a similar progression of skill checks based on mental skills as I mentioned above over a course of rounds (similar to how a combat engine would work) then meet that criteria?

For instance, instead of a simple dialogue check... there are numerous statistical tests for success and failure applied in the encounter (instead of a sword swinging, it is tactical use of conversation skills and the like which provide progression to an ultimate success or failure based on the application of the skills as well as their random success in the dice rolls).

So the "combat" encounter turns into a progression of discussion tactics using the elements of logical argument, influenced by various attributes for weight and the like.

In the end, it would function almost identical to a traditional combat encounter, but the tools would be conversational.

Would you call that an RPG?

A combat encounter is more than a simple skill check. You are not typically thrown into a duel situation, roll for attack and defense and that's it. In a combat scenario your options are almost endless. Just play any random, say TOEE encounter, and try to count how many options you have for it to play out. Considering everything accessible to you at the start of the encounter, discounting the choices you have made before. Positioning, movement, skills, order, consumables etc...

You could do a text based RPG/combat encounter of course, similar to that you could play chess without pieces and a board. But it would be pretty painful for most.

[Tweed]

UNGA BUNGA WORDS! WHEN GRUG GET TO HIT SOMETHING?!!

[Xenich]

Nah, if all it takes are skill checks/progression than a lot of games post ~ 2010 are RPGs. @Irenaeus just mentioned a great example of that. Sir Brante is a really good game, but not an RPG.

Well, the waters get "murky" due to it. I think we had a discussion a while back about "what is an RPG" and people differed on it.

I see your point, but I am trying to break it down to the key aspect. If we hold to combat as you mentioned, the difference between a dialogue skill check and combat is the sequence of progression correct? So, in physical combat it is a statistical test of your development choices applied tactically over a period of time to defeat the encounter correct?

Would then a similar progression of skill checks based on mental skills as I mentioned above over a course of rounds (similar to how a combat engine would work) then meet that criteria?

For instance, instead of a simple dialogue check... there are numerous statistical tests for success and failure applied in the encounter (instead of a sword swinging, it is tactical use of conversation skills and the like which provide progression to an ultimate success or failure based on the application of the skills as well as their random success in the dice rolls).

So the "combat" encounter turns into a progression of discussion tactics using the elements of logical argument, influenced by various attributes for weight and the like.

In the end, it would function almost identical to a traditional combat encounter, but the tools would be conversational.

Would you call that an RPG?

A combat encounter is more than a simple skill check. You are not typically thrown into a duel situation, roll for attack and defense and that's it. In a combat scenario your options are almost endless. Just play any random, say TOEE encounter, and try to count how many options you have for it to play out. Considering everything accessible to you at the start of the encounter, discounting the choices you have made before. Positioning, movement, skills, order, consumables etc...

You could do a text based RPG/combat encounter of course, similar to that you could play chess without pieces and a board. But it would be pretty painful for most.

Those are all states, conditions, and statistical tests which can be emulated in the form of social skills though. You can detail out everything you mentioned and I can adapt a system that uses social skills, abilities, statistics, tools, etc.. to achieve the exact same format.

Which is to say that it is not "combat" exactly, but the structure of the conflict you are talking about. You can replace sword, with various intellectual discussion "weapons", hit points with concepts like "resolve" or the like, ailments and conditions with "humiliation", "self esteem", "anxiety", etc... emulating every aspect of a physical combat, just packaged in that form. All through accumulative effects to the progression to which ultimately causes a success or failure in the encounter.

[Irenaeus]

A combat encounter is more than a simple skill check. You are not typically thrown into a duel situation, roll for attack and defense and that's it.

Fighting Fantasy books were like this. They are in the Choose Your Own Adventure genre. Though you had to roll a few times in most fights, it was rare to one-hit-kill.

[Xenich]

UNGA BUNGA WORDS! WHEN GRUG GET TO HIT SOMETHING?!!

Which could be a tactic. So, lets say a character is developed more with a brunt, forceful means of how they argue. It is in essence taking a simple "intimidation" check and making it a layer of tactics using various supporting approaches to speech that are common to it. It can be confusing language, low intellect, etc... physical nature, comeliness, etc... that allow them to "bully" a conversation. If they encounter an intellectual, many of the skills, tools, words, etc... will be ineffective in such an encounter (ever try to argue logic with someone completely void of it, it is useless and all the tools you may use produce no results).

Emulation of physical combat with words.

Mind you, it would require some very complex evaluations, categorizing, and structuring to develop it into a rounded system of pros/cons and the like, but the end result would be essentially the same as swinging a sword, casting a spell, dodging, drinking a potion, etc... just labeled under different concepts.

[Tweed]

UNGA BUNGA WORDS! WHEN GRUG GET TO HIT SOMETHING?!!

Which could be a tactic. So, lets say a character is developed more with a brunt, forceful means of how they argue. It is in essence taking a simple "intimidation" check and making it a layer of tactics using various supporting approaches to speech that are common to it. It can be confusing language, low intellect, etc... physical nature, comeliness, etc... that allow them to "bully" a conversation. If they encounter an intellectual, many of the skills, tools, words, etc... will be ineffective in such an encounter (ever try to argue logic with someone completely void of it, it is useless and all the tools you may use produce no results).

Emulation of physical combat with words.

Mind you, it would require some very complex evaluations, categorizing, and structuring to develop it into a rounded system of pros/cons and the like, but the end result would be essentially the same as swinging a sword, casting a spell, dodging, drinking a potion, etc... just labeled under different concepts.

[Oldtimer]

Had the hunch you are more interested in visual novels or adventure games. They indeed do need a story.

Hm. Not really no - I consider the RPGS Baldurs Gate 2 and 1 in that order to be the best games ever, and I really loved Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Bard's Tale, Rogue Trader and several others, but I wouldn't call them visual novels - and neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks among other things - and all of those are very heavily reliant on their stories. The Walking Dead however, as well as I guess Life is Strange were more of visual novels, also reliant on the stories, but the gameplay is way less important.

Out of curiosity, would you consider Diablo to be an RPG?

Never liked them, never played them. But I suppose they are RPGs.

Disco however is an adventure game. No combat (outside dialogue) -> not an RPG. To me it's just wild to say that story is an essential part of any RPG while combat is not.

Oh, and BG > BG2 obviously

I never said combat is or is not an essential part of an RPG. I can define RPGs for you:

First of all, RPGs are fundamentally a way to tell a story within certain limits or borders, made up by the rules and the world the game takes place in. RPGs are heavily reliant on randomness, determining everything from encounters to whether you succeed with a skill check or not, like, how good was Imoen at picking locks? **** good, but she could still fail occasionally. That's pretty much it. The difference to visual novels is that in those you have more set pieces, little to no randomness and few if any skill checks. How strong is the protagonist girl in Life is Strange? How smart is Lee Everett? We have no idea, because those characteristics are unimportant and take a backseat to the story being told.

[Oldtimer]

neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks

This is a Visual Novel that relies on skill checks. Unlike Disco Communism, it's well written.

I have to disagree on Disco not being well written. That said, I wasn't a fan of Brante, but maybe that was because I wasn't that interested in the story overall. And yes, it was a novel with skill checks, no denying that.

[Irenaeus]

neither would I call Disco a visual novel, since it relies on skill checks

This is a Visual Novel that relies on skill checks. Unlike Disco Communism, it's well written.

I have to disagree on Disco not being well written. That said, I wasn't a fan of Brante,

We have very different tastes. I think your tastes suck.

[Oldtimer]

This is a Visual Novel that relies on skill checks. Unlike Disco Communism, it's well written.

I have to disagree on Disco not being well written. That said, I wasn't a fan of Brante,

We have very different tastes. I think your tastes suck.

As does your mom in some alley.

[rusty_shackleford]

You can find the disco thread in the theater subforum btw

[rusty_shackleford]

https://web.archive.org/web/20060623030 ... i_01.shtml

System Shock’s design choice to eschew non-player characters in favor of using logs and messages left before their death is an interesting choice from a game design standpoint. In a postmortem on System Shock 2, Irrational Games developer Johnathan Chey notes that System Shock made this decision primarily because the computer technology of 1994 “was simply inadequate to support believable and enjoyable interactions with them” (Grossman, 12). While the decision was made out of necessity, it served to greatly improve the feeling and immersion of the title, and was a decision that was carried through in the August 11th, 1999 release of System Shock 2 by Irrational Games and Looking Glass.

This remains mostly true, dialogue trees were a mistake

[rusty_shackleford]

I see those pictures of designers working with these massive dialogue trees and I can't help but think, "is it fun?"
How much time is wasted on this instead of designing a fun encounter?

[ThulsaDoomer]

I see those pictures of designers working with these massive dialogue trees and I can't help but think, "is it fun?"
How much time is wasted on this instead of designing a fun encounter?

Fairly subjective and depending entirely on the genre and intentions of the game. Having written these kinds of dialogue trees with tracked variables and such, it is a lot of ******* work, but interactive media is the only way to do this and that in of itself is the "fun of it". Providing people the ability to change the trajectory of what you create, even a little, is leagues beyond what other platforms allow. That's what many of the old writers were chasing until their ranks got filled up with ******** and useless women/feminine men who had zero understanding of how to craft stories or write believable characters.

I do agree that keeping a lot of this dialogue to the party camp or relaxed areas helps maintain flow and lets the player breathe a little. I love dialogue and stories, but when I'm playing a game I'm also expecting to do other things in-between all of that. Dialogue for the sake of dialogue is trash, it's a womanly way of writing. It has to mean something, the character should be "saying" these things for a reason. If I wanted to simulate co-workers yapping about nonsense all shift, I'd go to work and not play video games. Slice of life brainlets are part of the reason why this became so popularised.

[Cipher]

Oh, and BG > BG2 obviously

Ah, I see that you are a man of high culture, as well.