Vapourware The problem with Speech (and your ideas for solutions)

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

What if a game would actually become more non-linear (and sometimes perhaps harder - but with better abilities to roleplay) the higher the speech skill you have?
For example, let's say there are a bunch of anarcho-statists holding a keycard to the long-forgotten ruins of somewhere else. With high enough speech, you can convince them that you adhere to their philosophy and obtain the keycard, bypassing a fight - but later in the game, if you align with stateful libertarians, they will come with reinforcements and try to whack you.
The problem with this approach I see, is that it would make sense in a small world where encountering the same character many times is expected, not necessarily in a larger setting.
In such system speech could be all about having additional options and perhaps avoiding tougher problems until later in the game.

How about just remove dialogues

 

[behold_a_man]

How about just remove dialogues

Not every RPG needs to imitate living in Albania.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Are NPCs in games merely findem and forget em objectives or more in depth? Even parser NPCs can just be info vending machines with zero actual personality except what is written. If players think playing the game and interacting is tedious, think of writing and developing personalities for EACH NPC. God, that has to be a fucking drain except for the OCD dev. I’d imagine developing the complexities of IRL-like situations with personalities, bigotry, insanities, disorders, vices, levels of intelligence and everything just in humans for NPCs would take time. Much less, how do elves, dwarves, aliens, etc actually think and behave. Ways to resolve speech and interaction is only a bit of the issue; developing convincing NPCs that are different and not copy/pasta borgs is another matter entirely. Hats off to the ones that pull this off though.

As an aside, I found fallout conversations humorous esp comments from Virgil when I played stupid alts.

 

[orcinator]

The problem is that skillchecks are a shit system that replaces using the game mechanics to solve problems with making a number go up until it exceeds a hidden threshold. It sucks in easy games like Fallout where you can have every important skill at high levels and it sucks in "hard" games like AoD where the nocombat gameplay boils down to a Skillpoint ATM Withdrawal simulator. Both have their exceptions where the player doesn't just sleepwalk through a dialogue menu but the majority of the interactions are mechanically shallow.

You CAN make speech mechanically interesting by giving it gameplay functions, like if you consider all the city state affecting mechanics in Civ to be that game's Speech, there's actual Interesting Choices™ there since you're considering the costs and benefits of getting more out of a citystate vs. conquering it or using your resources elsewhere. But this sort of stuff is pretty abstract and doesn't mesh with the Simulationist(storyfag) dialogue mechanics where you pick what words you want to say.

So if you want to make me read dialogue then just turn that shit into a more standard adventure game puzzle where I have to find X (with x maybe being an idea instead of an object) on Y and give it to an NPC instead.

 

[NecroLord]

This is good but the one issue I can see is that, in a game like Fallout, investing in speech means sacrificing other, combat-oriented skills.

That's not true at all.
Are you referring to the original Interplay games or the Bethesda theme parks?
In Fallout 1 and 2 you had three Tag skills, that is, you pick three skills in which you will advance at double the rate of other skills.
Obviously, you pick a combat skill, since there is only so much diplomacy can accomplish in a post apocalyptic wasteland.
Stupid characters (Intelligence of 4 or below that) gain very few skills per level, but intelligent characters gain more. You will have a lot of skill points and won't have to "sacrifice" anything.

 

[Lemming42]

^ You can finish Fo1, and complete the majority of quests, without engaging in combat*. Science and Speech are the important ones, and Repair is a marginally useful third tag skill (mostly just for repairing the Necropolis water pump, bringing ZAX online, and removing the forcefields in Mariposa).

The point is that you can realistically build a viable character who cannot engage in combat at all, and still win the game. This does in fact mean sacrificing other skills, if you want to bring your non-combat skills up to maximum (admittedly, there's no point in actually doing this in Fo1, but in an ideal game there should be). I think this is a good thing that should be expanded upon - a game where combat is essentially a fail state is a cool idea, and one of the big problems I have with 3 and NV is that the FPS-ification of the combat means that this build type is essentially lost since all characters can viably engage in combat, which is very boring and hobbles quest design. In a game like Fallout 1 (or, for another example, Age of Decadence), you can enjoy the tension of your weakling diplomat character being doomed if a fight breaks out.

*funnily enough, I think the only time you're even forced into turn-based mode is at the very start if you fail to sneak past the rats

 

[JarlFrank]

Click the [Speech] option, win the quest.

In earlier games that use speech as a skill (Fallout, Arcanum) the lines that are speech skill related aren't tagged.

You actually had to read the lines and consider which ones are the best options instead of simply going for the skill-tagged line automatically.

This is the solution. Just remove tags. They're like quest markers for dialogs.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Click the [Speech] option, win the quest.

In earlier games that use speech as a skill (Fallout, Arcanum) the lines that are speech skill related aren't tagged.

You actually had to read the lines and consider which ones are the best options instead of simply going for the skill-tagged line automatically.

This is the solution. Just remove tags. They're like quest markers for dialogs.

If you go that direction I think the logical end state should be Ironman, save only on exit. Game dialog designed with that in mind could make for interesting and carefully planned "speech" characters. In principle I hate not been able to save scum, but after Original Sin 3 quicksave/quickload galore in the middle of every sentence I'm finding that "freedom" to be detrimental in every aspect- replayability, character builds, skill checks and even the story suffers if you can quickly save and load to check all the options. Ofc the design MUST accommodate for Ironman style of dialog the same way it has to do for combat like providing ways to replace companions dying or leaving for example.

 

[JarlFrank]

No, ironman is shit. Make it an optional mode, sure, but don't enforce it.

 

[Ladonna]

Until Rat Diplomacy has been perfected, these questions will continue to surface.

 

[Falksi]

Charisma needs more practical combat uses as a stat to become relevant (Curing fear & rallying troops, scaring enemies on the battlefield, allowing for unified attacks etc.) and speech/diplomacy/persuasion should be left down to player choice.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

No, ironman is shit. Make it an optional mode, sure, but don't enforce it.

My point was it will not work if it's an option the same way tagging the dialog checks been an option. You either go all in or not at all. And having to guess what the writer had in mind or not been familiar with the game's setting is shitty way to design hidden skill check dialog.

 

[JarlFrank]

The solution to "having to guess what the writer had in mind" is to have a good writer who can convey information and tone well enough that it doesn't turn into guesswork.
Also offer enough options to give some variety and degrees of success/multiple angles of approach.

 

[Alex]

The problem with dialog skills is that the way they are implemented involves 0 gameplay. But trying to make mini-games based around dialog skills is ultimately a bad idea. Playing a mini-game, completely separated from the context of the rest of the game is hardly much more fun. First, mini-games tend to be simple and isolated from the rest of the game. So while you technically have gameplay now, it is as if you mixed a completely different game for no reason. Second, these mini-games usually go against the idea of what an RPG should be, by either abstracting too much away from what they represent or outright having nothing to do with it in first place.

Rather, I believe the best way to make dialog skills matter is by having their gameplay inserted into the larger context of the RPG. Rather than having it be a matter of simply rolling the dice or having x points in skill y, have the skill be a requirement for a variety of options, but require other things as well, that are part of the larger game. For instance, consider intimidation. Whenever intimidation is used as a skill in games, it is almost always about looking mean so someone back down. That can be part of it, but the meat of the gameplay could consist in finding the right kind of intimidation for each target. Do you want the mayor of bumsville to leave Meany McNasty's business alone? Well, going there and blowing some cigar smoke on his face might not produce any results. But if you ask around you will find out about his prized pet horse. If you have a good intimidation skill, you can have a conversation with him, drop some hints and after he invariably refuses, you can then sneak in his barn, get the horse's head and then sneak in his bedroom to put the horse's head in his pillow.

Or, for instance, consider the diplomacy skill. Diplomacy shouldn't be about manipulating the minds of the enemies; it should be about making them see past some prejudice and bad disposition they might initially have towards you or your side and getting them to consider proposals they would refuse not because they are bad, but because they were badly disposed to them. For instance, perhaps the lizardmen you are fighting are averse to any talk of peace because they see it as cowardice. If, during the game, you have done courageous acts all the time (so that you might either have a fame for it or be legitimately courageous, depending on what kind of game we are talking), having a good diplomacy skill might allow them to recognise you as such and listen to what you have to say where before they wouldn't.

On the first approach, we have a bit of a headache. The skill is opening a whole new path to obtain something. Which means that work done in implementing all this won't be seen by people who don't take that skill. This is great in a CRPG, but it is something that big companies dislike to do because they see as a waste of resources and smaller companies have trouble doing because they have very limited resources in first place. The second approach is more resource friendly since it draws on choices already made to determine how things will go, but even it hard to do because you still have branching from the consequences of the skill use itself and because You should have various opportunities to use the skill for various different types of characters.

The ultimate problem is, I believe, not so much then that it is hard to make "speechcraft" skills integrate with the rest of the gameplay. Tabletop RPGs do that all the time. The problem is that it is expensive to do this well, so it is mostly avoided.

 

[anvi]

Anything is better than now.

 

[gurugeorge]

It's an odd thing, it's kind of analogous to the way player twitch skills cross against abstracted, numbers-based systems "skills."

e.g. the player irl has an aiming capability with controller/mouse, whereas the game is based on an abstracted quantity of "accuracy" or whatever. (What you don't want is to introduce annoying artificial "sway" to pull your twitch skill in line with the abstracted skill - that would be analogous to introducing minigames that have no relevance to your actual irl speech skill, but are meant to represent your character's speech skill abstractly - like the rock paper scissors idea in D:OS someone mentioned above, or the Oblivion system - although that said, I actually quite liked those).

You the player irl have whatever innate irl capability you have, of choosing persuasive lines of argument from dialogue options, from background knowledge, lore, etc., so in theory there's no need for a separate "skill." But yet in an RPG you are supposed to be playing a character who has x amount of "persuasiveness" or speech skill or disposition or whatever, in the abstract, which may be notionally higher or lower than your irl skill.

It's quite a conundrum really, and I don't know if there is a solution to it, just least-worst options for various sensibilities and preferences.

 

[Lemming42]

The problem with dialog skills is that the way they are implemented involves 0 gameplay. But trying to make mini-games based around dialog skills is ultimately a bad idea. Playing a mini-game, completely separated from the context of the rest of the game is hardly much more fun. First, mini-games tend to be simple and isolated from the rest of the game. So while you technically have gameplay now, it is as if you mixed a completely different game for no reason. Second, these mini-games usually go against the idea of what an RPG should be, by either abstracting too much away from what they represent or outright having nothing to do with it in first place.

I think the term "mini-game" gives people the wrong idea. Done right, the introduction of dialogue mechanics needn't feel any more like a jarring minigame than, say, shifting into turn-based combat does. I think a key focus would be on how to make it so that the dialogue mechanics feel constantly present and relevant in the world. Combat remains relevant even when it's not taking place because players are looking for weapons and armour, collecting spell scrolls, looking for potions that could give them an edge, etc. There must be a way to involve dialogue in the same way, make it so that players are constantly on the lookout for ways to give themselves advantages in the dialogue "mini-game" during overworld exploration.

Going back to Oblivion again (mostly just because it's the funniest example), the issue is that, as you mention, it feels detached from the rest of the game; the speech pie chart appears for no reason and players generally don't understand why they're having to play this odd thing that's come out of nowhere. I don't think it's an inevitability that new, non-combat game mechanics will end up like that, though - Oblivion's error (in addition to the minigame being shit) is that the only thing that affects it is your Personality/Speechcraft skill, and there's not really anything else you can find or do in the world to affect the speech game.

You the player irl have whatever innate irl capability you have, of choosing persuasive lines of argument from dialogue options, from background knowledge, lore, etc., so in theory there's no need for a separate "skill." But yet in an RPG you are supposed to be playing a character who has x amount of "persuasiveness" or speech skill or disposition or whatever, in the abstract, which may be notionally higher or lower than your irl skill.

Exactly, the approach used to speech right now doesn't feel like you're playing a persuasive character, it just feels like you're choosing the Speech option (whether outright tagged or just obviously-telegraphed). A degree of abstraction (such as a card game) gets around this by leaving the exact specifics of your negotiation up to the player's imagination, but lets you actually feel your character's skill at negotiation, as the more persuasive your character is, the more advantages you get in the dialogue game. That's part of the core of any RPG, IMO - being able to tangibly feel your character getting more skilled and able.

People have mixed opinions but I like the lockpicking minigame from Fo3/NV for that reason. You don't feel your character getting better at lockpicking in Fo1/2, you just have to reroll less while clicking on doors. But in 3/NV you can actually feel locks becoming looser and easier to pick as your character becomes a more skilled thief. The only real problem with the lockpicking in those games is that it freezes time; if it weren't for that then they'd be really good. It can be argued that they still rely a bit too much on player skill, but they've got the right idea, I think.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

The solution to "having to guess what the writer had in mind" is to have a good writer who can convey information and tone well enough that it doesn't turn into guesswork.
Also offer enough options to give some variety and degrees of success/multiple angles of approach.

I disagree, it's not a problem of writing quality, but design quality. You can have best written RPG ever and still have shitty dialog system and vice versa.

One idea I like a lot is the keywords, but with added skills to them. Let say you initiate a dialog and you have a charisma/int/lore or whatever stat that gives you max keywords you can store and use, then you can use these stored keywords (they can be found by exploring the world or by previous conversations) to chat with whoever and for some situations where you would unlock the initiation of persuasion/intimidation/bluff you are then presented with additional specific character skill ( persuasion/intimidation/bluff ) and you have to choose how to approach it.

 

[ciox]

I've thought about this. It would fit into how I would try to handle all skill checks.

Predictable use cases are made for every skill check, including speech, and the player is trained on these use cases early on, then they are deployed all throughout the rest of the game.

Modifying gear with your crafting skill makes gear more powerful, but more likely to break, you know the repair skill mops up that mess, even if you can still just replace gear once it breaks, the use case is there.
Ruined areas are telegraphed in advance, more things are broken there and a levelled-up repair skill is more useful, not that you are forced to level it.
High-security areas are telegraphed in advance, more things are tightly secured there and levelled-up thieving skills are more useful.
More skills should function in conjunction with each other, and more areas should give hints on their skill checks in some way.

Faction interactions can be made somewhat conventional and rigid, but with good reason, skill checks can now be telegraphed and you know when access to a faction's shop tiers or inner circle is coming, and can see how you get to those clear milestones faster with better speech or will. You also gain some idea of when a faction gives you opportunities to ask for bigger rewards or faster promotion, so levelling your speech skills is not as random, you can either go all-in on combat prowess while out in the field, or risk diverting some points into the 'better rewards' department if you notice you are getting close to a big promotion opportunity. Based on how you were doing in the field it can be a good or bad idea.

Won't lie that my vision is pretty combat-focused, and it doesn't focus much on going for epic battles of the wits with NPCs, even if there is room for that too, I feel I would appreciate a solid and somewhat rigid system, more than a loose system with occasional flashes of brilliance and lots of perceived randomness in its skill checks.

 

[Alex]

The problem with dialog skills is that the way they are implemented involves 0 gameplay. But trying to make mini-games based around dialog skills is ultimately a bad idea. Playing a mini-game, completely separated from the context of the rest of the game is hardly much more fun. First, mini-games tend to be simple and isolated from the rest of the game. So while you technically have gameplay now, it is as if you mixed a completely different game for no reason. Second, these mini-games usually go against the idea of what an RPG should be, by either abstracting too much away from what they represent or outright having nothing to do with it in first place.

I think the term "mini-game" gives people the wrong idea. Done right, the introduction of dialogue mechanics needn't feel any more like a jarring minigame than, say, shifting into turn-based combat does. I think a key focus would be on how to make it so that the dialogue mechanics feel constantly present and relevant in the world. Combat remains relevant even when it's not taking place because players are looking for weapons and armour, collecting spell scrolls, looking for potions that could give them an edge, etc. There must be a way to involve dialogue in the same way, make it so that players are constantly on the lookout for ways to give themselves advantages in the dialogue "mini-game" during overworld exploration.
(...)

The problem with this idea is that the gameplay in question will always feel as something extraneous to the activity. Combat is not necessarily the centre of RPG or even CRPG mechanics; and I do believe you can have a game with no combat be either. But combat is such a very good example of gameplay in RPGs because the whole gameplay consists in just doing it. Selecting when to attack and when to defend, when to retreat and how to attack, the gameplay is just analogous to the combat. It is just making the choices your character would be making. It is completely different than, say, playing some abstract chess game where knights are facts, rooks are arguments and queens are public consensus.

The best attempt I've seen of trying to make social interactions into gameplay analogue to combat was in a pencil and paper game called Burning Wheel. There, you have an argument with someone and different kinds of argumentative strategy are categorised as kinds of attacks, which are weaker and stronger to other kinds. The whole thing has a couple of good ideas buried in it, but the mini-game itself is abstract and doesn't make sense. The most important aspect about an argument should be its content, not how well you roll when making it.

 

[Rean]

Have the player speak into the microphone.

 

[JarlFrank]

The best attempt I've seen of trying to make social interactions into gameplay analogue to combat was in a pencil and paper game called Burning Wheel. There, you have an argument with someone and different kinds of argumentative strategy are categorised as kinds of attacks, which are weaker and stronger to other kinds. The whole thing has a couple of good ideas buried in it, but the mini-game itself is abstract and doesn't make sense. The most important aspect about an argument should be its content, not how well you roll when making it.

Didn't Deus Ex: Human Revolution do something like this?

 

[Faarbaute]

In my opinion, having various speech skills, derived from stats such as charisma or not, should be more about allowing the player to characterize their character and establish motives, framing, etc. It shouldn't necessarily be a win button, or represent a dedicated path, separate from normal gameplay, through which to beat the game. It should be something that allows you to set the tone of a confrontation, sometimes offering an advantage , a disadvantage, changing how a confrontation plays out, changing what the subsequent consequences of a confrontation are, and so on. The possibilities are endless really, and it shouldn't have to boil down to a systematic: 1) Attack. 2) Diplomacy. 3) Intimidate. 4) Decieve.

One stupid yet lovely example of this that springs to mind, is in Pathfinder:Kingmaker, when you confront The Stag Lord.

spoiler

Aside from all the other shenanigans you can get up to, you can just choose to knock on the front door and declare that you've come to kill The Stag Lord, resulting in your party being let inside the compound, and given an audience with The Stag Lord himself, after which combat commences with your party at an incredibly disadvantaged position, but you fight your way through it and come away feeling like you're playing a lawful good character, who's also a badass.

This is what it's all about. Not pressing skill checks in dialogue to "win". (also no minigames pls)

 

[gurugeorge]

The best attempt I've seen of trying to make social interactions into gameplay analogue to combat was in a pencil and paper game called Burning Wheel. There, you have an argument with someone and different kinds of argumentative strategy are categorised as kinds of attacks, which are weaker and stronger to other kinds. The whole thing has a couple of good ideas buried in it, but the mini-game itself is abstract and doesn't make sense. The most important aspect about an argument should be its content, not how well you roll when making it.

Didn't Deus Ex: Human Revolution do something like this?

This reminds me of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Diplomacy system. I only vaguely recall it now, but I seem to recall that it was quite an ingenious and engaging minigame, and in fact much like a mini card game, and it probably hovers around the core of what would be the ideal solution.

I don't know how you'd tie it to speech or persuasion in the more traditional MMO, but I guess the higher your abstract speech skill the easier it would be to pick up good "cards" or the more frequently you'd find good ones?

Then you'd have both the abstraction being effective and player skill being effective at the same time, that seems to be the ideal, somehow blending the two.

I also agree that calling this type of idea a "minigame" prejudices it, but the core idea is sound, it just has to have a "flavour" that's reminiscent of actually being a glib-tongued persuasive character.

 

[Spukrian]

Does anyone remember the Confrontation system in The Council? In orcer to persuade you had to choose the correct dialogue choice, but if you couldn't figure it out you could use a Skill (expending Willpower) or even use a consumable. It was a pretty good system. Vampire the Masquerade Swansong has something similar. I vaguely remember that Deus Ex Human Revolution has something similar but more simplified.

Charisma has existed since the foundation of RPGs with original Dungeons & Dragons, and one of its functions has always been to affect reactions by others. If a dialogue system already includes disposition, then it would be a simple matter for charisma to affect this disposition, just as would faction allegiance, reputation, and more specific factors such as knowledge uncovered by the player. Thus, charisma would substitute, to a limited extent, for these other factors, making it easier for a charismatic player-character to achieve better reactions with others but not automatically resulting in the success of charismatic PCs or the failure of non-charismatic PCs. Similarly, a system relying on skills rather than attributes would have a speech skill that modifies reactions, again substituting for those other factors but not obviating them.

Well, it just comes down to personal prefference. I don't like Charisma/Speech and I don't like them substituting for other factors. I think it should be the other way around: just substitute Charisma with other stats, e.g. if an NPC values Strength then a PC with high Strength would get a better reaction. Or an NPC who values combat prowess react well to a PC with high Melee skill.