INT/WIS/CHA/PERSUADE dialogue options in mods

[yarpen]

I hate it when mod-added content differs from vanilla. I'd love to see this kind of dialogues done through the whole game - but if you are planning to use them only in content you are doing: either you should not implement them or at least skip that [MOD-ADDED CONTENT] label. But y'know, that's just my opinion.

[Cahir]

Hmm as much as I'd love to see this to be implemented, cause I really like PST styled dialogues, Yarpen has a valid point. Seeing this only in small part of the game (that is content of your mod) will be like a neon sign "THIS IS MOD CONTENT" and could be immersion breaking for some players (not sure if it would be me TBH). OTOH if you could add such thing to many vanilla quests it would be immensely terrific.

 

I think not adding additional markers would lessen the mod content label feeling. I know that not knowing when you actually use your persuasive skill is not ideal, but I think it is lesser evil. That's why I suggested different font color, shame it's not possible to do.

[jastey]

*wails* But having reply options that imply a dialogue path but result in disaster because of hidden un-fulfilled requirements is screaming mod-content, too!!!11

 

At least in my opinion.

 

How about something like action text? ~(You chose your words to reflect your wisdom.) Let us pass, good man, we bring cookies.~

I've used things like (mockingly) or (in earnest) to let the player realize how the sentence is meant, this could also be done for this.

 

I voted for [WIS], but yes, I am kind of unhappy wbout the style. But I really don't like having reply options that imply one dialogue path and then it goes all down with trumpeting. This could really turn me off a mod.

[Jarno Mikkola]

*wails* But having reply options that imply a dialogue path but result in disaster because of hidden un-fulfilled requirements is screaming mod-content, too!!!11

 

At least in my opinion.

Well, like you said later, the fact of how saying the thing effects the outcome is really important, and as we don't have Mass Effect like game, but where the thing you say is the exact thing that's said in the dialog, the stat adding or hiding dialog options is a good thing, and there's a precedence of it in the game already, the Wish spell. "I wish to be protected from undead right now. " you get 6 aggressive vampires coming after you as you didn't have the Wisdom to say the right thing: "I wish to be protected from the undead."

 

And if you Demivrgvs wish to contribute to the mod, I am sure Kulyok is willing to read your PMs and take your imput into consideration, especially if you/rest of your team, would like to contribute to the coding effort.

[Twani]

It is sort of in the game already, with cha/rep checks. The one I can think of is the Githyanki after the Illithid Dungeon, which I believe requires 19 CHA + 20 REP or something insane: you have the same option to try to give the sword back peacefully no matter what, but if you can't make that rep check, the githyanki attack you for even holding their holy relic at all. If you can make that check, they grudgingly let you go. Both are marked the same, though: you don't know which one you're going to get unless you know the details of that check.

[Kulyok]

I think high Wis or high Cha options are like nice Easter eggs - you can use them to make peace with the Githyanki, or make Xan drunk, or maybe make a certain antagonist like you more, but spoilers. I do think that denying the player the "best" path if his Wis is lower than 16(for example) is a bad idea. But if he's got high CHA, he deserves a shortcut, and if he has high WIS or INT, he deserves to find out the truth earlier than most.

[jastey]

Kulyok: I like your concept (all of it, including the part about not closing paths due to missing stats). But let me repeat one more time: If the player doesn't know he is seeing a shortcut for his PC with high CHA, for example, playing the mod could lead to frustration, or at least wouldn't be half as much fun. (Okay, I guess I stated my wish to have reply options marked often enough..)

[Thimblerig]

I see what you mean about missing content being a pain, Jastey.

 

I think the way dialogue options are worded is, or could be, helpful. Like:

 

Door Guard: ~You shall not pass!~

(1) ++ ~I've killed everyone else in my way. Do you really want to be next?~

(2) ++ ~But it's really important!~

(3) + ~PartyGoldGT(49)~ + ~I can make it worth your while financially.~

(4) + ~High CHR~ + ~You say that in such a stern and womanly way. It makes me go all funny inside. Can't we talk about this some more?~

(5) + ~High WIS~ + ~I can't help but notice that your unit has been stationed here for ten years with no relief. When was your last payroll, even? Are you sure your employers haven't forgotten you?~

 

Actually, you don't even have to give special treatment to the high stat options, there. In that example, there could be two outcomes - aggression vs. negotiation. Someone with low social stats (and no money) would always get (1) and (2) - the basic choices. (3), (4), and (5) would just add a more flavourful way of getting to the negotiation.

[Kulyok]

@Jastey, I was thinking of adding an extra option to the mod - to ask the player whether the options should be marked or not, and still haven't discounted it entirely.

 

But I think that I'm moderately okay in making the paths understandable, as Thimblerig says(that totally worked in your conversation, by the way, Thimblerig, taking my hat off!)

[jastey]

I want to differ between two things:

 

1 extra reply options for certain stats/conditions that only show if these requirements are met

 

2 reply options that show for all PCs but lead to different outcomes, depending on stats/conditions

 

I have no problem with the 1st, especially if it's like Thimblering phrased the example. At least not as long as all PCs have at least the chance of solving the quest in "good" way, even if they are not overly wise or charming (making these reply options kind of a super-super plus)

 

But: number 2 without any warning is just something I don't want to play, as it makes the dialogue flow unpredictable and this frustrates me. There is a reason other games include signs like [PERSUADE] etc. I fmy PC gambles with a pool she doesn't have, at least I would like to know she is gambling. (Sory for repeating myself over and over, I feel surprisingly strong about this.)

[Kulyok]

I feel really bad each time I lose a persuade in Dragon Age, so I really understand. I'm leaning to "if this solution exists, only people with high stat will see it, and it will be clearly cut as the best extra solution/alternative; other players will not be given a choice"(but, again, it's not an extra critical path/seven new quests for people who have 23 CHA, naturally).

[jastey]

Ah, that would be great. I think it is the solution that most people feel comfortable with: inline with BG, but no feelings of "dang I lost because I wasn't smart/charming/credible enough". (And I can stop arguing in favor of my point..)

[Jarno Mikkola]

@Jastey, I was thinking of adding an extra option to the mod - to ask the player whether the options should be marked or not, and still haven't discounted it entirely.

I approve this, it will make you to have separated .tra files for each language, but the separation will be easy to make, and you'll get ~13 out of the 14 votes.

[InKal]

lol, there's PS:T on that picture and not BG2 for a reason

 

iirc in BG2 is only one (fooking one 111) atribute check (luzly beholder in Sahuagin city). char/int/wis means nothing. you have exactly the same dialog options with int 18 and int 3. whats the point? just write the good dialog and don't bother with options:

 

[bG2 is not PS:T] hurrrr durrrr, herp derp

[Ardanis]

EE-like, with success/failure outcomes and no marking.

What you want to do, however, is either to keep the outcome difference not too radical, or offer the player a second check to lessen the consequences if they fail the initial check.