Community The New World Design Poll #3: Dialogue Checks

[Norfleet]

To be fair, playing Talkers is ALWAYS easymode. You don't actually DO anything, you click a button and either you succeed, so it was easy, or you don't, in which case the entire thing was a massive waste of time. All skill-check-based gameplay is like this: It's a button you push, that decides an outcome based on the number of times you previously pushed some other button ("Raise Skill Level"). If you succeed, great, that was easy. If you don't, every single time you pushed the button before was completely and utterly wasted and there is nothing you can do about it. If the check is a hard bar, then if you pushed the button 14 times but needed to push it 15 times, then you've just completely and utterly wasted those 14 button presses, which were likely finite in number, since it's exactly the same as if you had never pushed the button at all. If the result isn't even fixed, so you don't even know how many times you pushed the button and NO number of times you push the button will work, then it's ALWAYS completely wasted, unless you take to savescumming, in which case you didn't need to push the button previously at all.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The summations of the points by the OP seem like that would produce to the best mixture.

Design the dialogue choices however the creator feels best. Tag key responses which are received, as a percentage, based on the NPCs dispositions and the PCs relevant skill. The NPC interjects with a failed response or a successful response after a certain amount of selections have been made. A minimum threshold may be met to meet the primary goal, with additional rewards added based on the degree which the PC exceeded the minimum success threshold.

Does that sound about right? Choices could still be keyed like in Pillars of Eternity (Stoic, Assertive, Sly, etc.) to provide better context for the player about the intention of a choice while keeping skill checks hidden to provide a robust and "honest" interaction. Outside of mini-game, or game mechanic as in-depth as combat, this seems like a good solution. The problem with dialogue though, is that every "encounter" is unique and require tremendous care and creativity by the designer.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

To be fair, playing Talkers is ALWAYS easymode. You don't actually DO anything, you click a button and either you succeed, so it was easy, or you don't, in which case the entire thing was a massive waste of time. All skill-check-based gameplay is like this: It's a button you push, that decides an outcome based on the number of times you previously pushed some other button ("Raise Skill Level"). If you succeed, great, that was easy. If you don't, every single time you pushed the button before was completely and utterly wasted and there is nothing you can do about it. If the check is a hard bar, then if you pushed the button 14 times but needed to push it 15 times, then you've just completely and utterly wasted those 14 button presses, which were likely finite in number, since it's exactly the same as if you had never pushed the button at all. If the result isn't even fixed, so you don't even know how many times you pushed the button and NO number of times you push the button will work, then it's ALWAYS completely wasted, unless you take to savescumming, in which case you didn't need to push the button previously at all.

That's only the case if the NPCs checks are static. IE: Player needs to overcome a constant target number. If the designer has the NPC use the same mechanic as the PC and you will get a variable outcome. Statistics like Perception could even provide feedback to the player whenever a check is made, vaguely indicating the degree of reception by NPC. This would be no different than your mouse cursor over an NPC showing "badly wounded/near death" or such similar combat mechanics.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

To be fair, playing Talkers is ALWAYS easymode. You don't actually DO anything, you click a button and either you succeed, so it was easy, or you don't, in which case the entire thing was a massive waste of time. All skill-check-based gameplay is like this: It's a button you push, that decides an outcome based on the number of times you previously pushed some other button ("Raise Skill Level"). If you succeed, great, that was easy. If you don't, every single time you pushed the button before was completely and utterly wasted and there is nothing you can do about it. If the check is a hard bar, then if you pushed the button 14 times but needed to push it 15 times, then you've just completely and utterly wasted those 14 button presses, which were likely finite in number, since it's exactly the same as if you had never pushed the button at all. If the result isn't even fixed, so you don't even know how many times you pushed the button and NO number of times you push the button will work, then it's ALWAYS completely wasted, unless you take to savescumming, in which case you didn't need to push the button previously at all.

.........button

 

[Dr Schultz]

Vault Dweller: glad to hear that you reconsidered your approach to non-combat gameplay, Vince.
I once told you - and I'm still utterly convinced of that - that a diplomatic character in Age of Decadence implies a story-mode more than easy-mode. A (good) narrative with no real gameplay involved.

I'm more than happy to see that you are trying to design dialogues as problems and skills as tools (not ready solutions) to use in order to solve said problems. I would be even more radical if I were you: I would drop the persuasion skill in favor of a passive one that helps you with hints about the psyche of the person you are talking to.

Anyway, I have a bunch of questions about the new system:

1- How does reputation fit into this new system?
2- Is it possible to "lose" a conversation ONLY because your persuationskill isn't high enough (I hope no)
3- Is it possibile to "win" a conversation in which you give all the wrong answers ONLY because your persuation skill is high enough (I hope no).
4- Is it possibile to gain additional lines for a dialogue trough info gained elesewhere (I hope yes).

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller: glad to hear that you reconsidered your approach to non-combat gameplay, Vince.
I once told you - and I'm still utterly convinced of that - that a diplomatic character in Age of Decadence implies a story-mode more than easy-mode. A (good) narrative with no real gameplay involved.

I'm more than happy to see that you are trying to design dialogues as problems and skills as tools (not skills) to use in order to solve said problems. I would be even more radical if I were you: I would drop the persuasion skill in favor of a passive one that helps you with hints about the psyche of the person you are talking to.

Eventually, I'd like to develop a complex dialogue system (as complex as a combat system) but it would take a lot of time and our plate is full as it is (new engine, a stealth system, party dynamics, etc). For now I just want to do better than what we had in AoD.

1- How does reputation fit into this new system?

It will give you reaction bonuses or penalties where appropriate and add new lines. Kinda like intimidating Cassius in AoD if your have high bodycount. Same here. If your combat reputation is Unstable, people will think twice before saying no to you. They might also try to kill you first (before you get the same idea) if the conversation starts heading the wrong way, so there are drawbacks too.

2- Is it possible to "lose" a conversation ONLY because your persuationskill isn't high enough (I hope no)

3- Is it possibile to "win" a conversation in which you give all the right answers ONLY because your persuation skill isn't high enough (I hope no).

Sorry to disappoint you but the answers are yes and no. Skills MUST determine the outcome. That's one of the key testaments of our faith. What the new system does (that the old one didn't) is that it gives you some flexibility and let you 'win' with the right answers IF your skill is good enough but not quite high enough. If you don't have the skills, it doesn't matter what you say as we can assume you're saying it wrong (like a kid trying to strike up a conversation with a girl using someone else's lines).

4- Is it possibile to gain additional lines for a dialogue trough info gained elesewhere (I hope yes).

Absolutely.

 

[Dr Schultz]

2- Is it possible to "lose" a conversation ONLY because your persuationskill isn't high enough (I hope no)

3- Is it possibile to "win" a conversation in which you give all the right answers ONLY because your persuation skill isn't high enough (I hope no).

Sorry to disappoint you but the answers are yes and no. Skills MUST determine the outcome. That's one of the key testaments of our faith.

I'm skipping directly to the disappointing part (the rest of your answer is more than satisfing).

It used to be the key testament of my faith too, for a looong time, but - honestly - after all these years of roleplay I don't think anymore it's a useful way to handle non-combat gameplay.

Today I'm more like: Must civil skills HELP you with the task at hand? Of course they do.
Must civil skills solely DETERMINE the outcome of the task at hand? Of course NOT
That's why I'm so inclined towards passive skills in dialogues.

Reasuming your analogy with combat systems, a good tactician is able to win an hard combat encounter even with a weak characters, isn't he? A player good at reading peaple's intentions should be able to win an hard conversation with a dumb character as well. And a thoughtful character build should help both players in both circumstamces without determining anything by itself, at least in my book.

 

[Infinitron]

Hey Dr Schultz, welcome back. Weren't you the guy who ran that Italian RPG blog that interviewed some Torment devs? What happened to that?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Reasuming your analogy with combat systems, a good tactician is able to win an hard combat encounter even with a weak characters, isn't he?

Within reasons.

Overall, dropping persuasion in favor of passive 'people reading' abilities, as you suggested, is like dropping combat skills in favor of passive damage modifiers. You can be good at reading people, but that doesn't mean you'd be good at selling, much like having excellent vision doesn't make you a marksman. I believe that a full-scale rpg MUST have both combat and dialogue skills. Persuasion, streetwise/deception/manipulation, impersonate, haggling, etc are very specific, "real-life" skills, so there's no reason not to use them in RPGs. The only question is how to implement them in an interesting, engaging way.

 

[Haba]

You shouldn't know if you succeeded or failed a conversation. Your skills should give you hints but not absolutes. The outcomes shouldn't be always obvious and the consequences should be delayed for later (or not be made apparent at all).

Wildly out of tangent rambling:

Spoiler

Something like a card came would be good to simulate a conversation "challenge"

- Emphatic character should get more cues about the person's disposition before and during the conversation. A complete social autist wouldn't even understand if someone is offended by them.

- Experienced talker would get more openers and more follow-up lines, whilst a beginner will freeze up mid conversation and will in general have fewer things to discuss.

- A smooth talker would be able to recover tricky situations without terminating the conversation.

Basically you have a pool of topics, each having one or more outcomes. Depending on your pre-work investigation, character knowledge and character skill, you have different choices that you can pursue.

The person you converse has their own modifiers and status. Follow-ups with varying requirements etc.

Seems really complicated, but I think it could be simplified into workable format relatively easily.

Fuck, that already sounds more interesting than most RPG dialogue.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Hey Dr Schultz, welcome back. Weren't you the guy who ran that Italian RPG blog that interviewed some Torment devs? What happened to that?

Thank you Infinitron, ad yes, I was that guy.

As for your question, it may sound a little melodramatic but... life happened. Job and family matters left me with little no spare time.

Reassuming your analogy with combat systems, a good tactician is able to win an hard combat encounter even with a weak characters, isn't he?

Within reasons.

Overall, dropping persuasion in favor of passive 'people reading' abilities, as you suggested, is like dropping combat skills in favor of passive damage modifiers. You can be good at reading people, but that doesn't mean you'd be good at selling, much like having excellent vision doesn't make you a marksman. I believe that a full-scale rpg MUST have both combat and dialogue skills. Persuasion, streetwise/deception/manipulation, impersonate, haggling, etc are very specific, "real-life" skills, so there's no reason not to use them in RPGs. The only question is how to implement them in an interesting, engaging way.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not against tagged lines. It's the idea of a general persuasion skill that doesn't give me a thrill.

Continuing with our analogy:

- Normal lines should be the equivalent of various form of basic attacks.
- Tagged lines should be the equivalent of special abilities.
- Special lines (gained via reputation, exploration or otherwise) should be the equivalent of consumables.
- The effectiveness of said lines should depends on the situation/opponent. Otherwise they are the usual "win" button.

I think we can safety agree on all these points. What we see differently is the following:

- Persuasion in your system seems the equivalent of the character level (general effectiveness while speaking). It seems also the most relevant factor in succeeding in dialogues, which is something I would gladly avoid. A "good" player to me should be able to win a conversation with a combination of normal, tagged and special lines, even with an uncharismatic character, at least at the basic degree of success. His task as a player should be precisely reading his opponent and deploying the right tools to win the confrontation. The dialogue-gameplay should center around that in order to be a "challenge" for the player. Otherwise it's more akin to a validation of the character build with no real challange involved. It's just an idea, Vince, but I think that a passive skill (the equivalent of a tactical scanning in our analogy) would serve your non-combat gameplay better then a general persuasion skill, all without undermining the importance of character build.

 

[Fenix]

https://www.pcgamer.com/playing-fal...t-for-fallout-5-but-for-a-new-old-school-rpg/

This article somehow has it right about dialogues in Fallout.
That was a thing I miss in AoD - dialogues were too heavy with gamification with all these checks...
If possible, I want to return a little back to the roots.

 

[Lady_Error]

You shouldn't know if you succeeded or failed a conversation. Your skills should give you hints but not absolutes. The outcomes shouldn't be always obvious and the consequences should be delayed for later (or not be made apparent at all).

I disagree. That was one of the issues Torment had: people simply didn't know how much reactivity and different approaches there are because the game didn't say anything.

 

[Black Angel]

It's just an idea, Vince, but I think that a passive skill (the equivalent of a tactical scanning in our analogy) would serve your non-combat gameplay better then a general persuasion skill, all without undermining the importance of character build.

However, I think the reason why Vince didn't implement a specific 'people-reading skill' is because that part is up for the players instead:

The biggest conceptual change is that the tagged lines would now represent an attempt without any guarantees of success. It’s up to the player to read people based on the available info and consider what would work best. You can have two different streetwise lines, for example, one would result in a positive reaction, the other in a negative.

It's like how it's up for the players to choose what enemy unit to attack, and with what attack, instead of having the player character do all that by themselves.
Besides, how would you implement 'people-reading skill' for a cRPG, exactly? Like the 'Empathy' perk for Fallout 2, where the game (or rather, the perk) highlight the lines in blue for positive reaction, and red for negative reaction? Obviously, in case of 'people-reading skill', I'd assume the lines in NPC's dialogues that are being highlighted, rather than player character's.

 

[thesheeep]

- Persuasion in your system seems the equivalent of the character level (general effectiveness while speaking). It seems also the most relevant factor in succeeding in dialogues, which is something I would gladly avoid. A "good" player to me should be able to win a conversation with a combination of normal, tagged and special lines, even with an uncharismatic character, at least at the basic degree of success.

I think this is where you are wrong.
A good player should not be able to win any situation with a character build that is wholly unsuited to it.
Just as the best master tactician shouldn't have a chance in a tougher combat encounter with a wimpy character, a character with the charisma of a potato should not be able to convince a seasoned politician, no matter how clever the player picks his dialogue lines.
The challenge is not in trying to win such situations (that should be impossible, and clearly so), the challenge is to avoid such situations - e.g. trying not to get into combat situations with a talker.

And "a basic degree of success" just isn't possible in most situations. You cannot be in combat and "win a little". You either win or lose.
In a conversation, there is a bit more freedom, but it depends extremely on the situation.

 

[Fenix]

I agree, but there could be some middle ground as in Fallout, which was described in that artile I posted.

 

[Drowed]

To be fair, playing Talkers is ALWAYS easymode. You don't actually DO anything, you click a button and either you succeed, so it was easy, or you don't, in which case the entire thing was a massive waste of time.

We can interpret talkers characters as puzzles. Many puzzles from adventure game can fall exactly in this description: "all you do is push a button (or click on certain places in a certain order) and you succeed, or you've wasted your time." The challenge isn't in the act itself, but in finding out what the specific order of actions you need to do to find the solution. You can go through the challenge by pure "brute force" - saving the game and trying all possible options until you find the solution - but this isn't very different from saving before each attack in the game and loading it whenever you miss.

The point is that a puzzle needs to be interesting, challenging and creative, otherwise it ends up looking arbitrary and a waste of time. Exactly as a solution by dialogue, if it's poorly elaborated.

 

[Dr Schultz]

It's just an idea, Vince, but I think that a passive skill (the equivalent of a tactical scanning in our analogy) would serve your non-combat gameplay better then a general persuasion skill, all without undermining the importance of character build.

However, I think the reason why Vince didn't implement a specific 'people-reading skill' is because that part is up for the players instead:

The biggest conceptual change is that the tagged lines would now represent an attempt without any guarantees of success. It’s up to the player to read people based on the available info and consider what would work best. You can have two different streetwise lines, for example, one would result in a positive reaction, the other in a negative.

It's like how it's up for the players to choose what enemy unit to attack, and with what attack, instead of having the player character do all that by themselves.

Besides, how would you implement 'people-reading skill' for a cRPG, exactly? Like the 'Empathy' perk for Fallout 2, where the game (or rather, the perk) highlight the lines in blue for positive reaction, and red for negative reaction? Obviously, in case of 'people-reading skill', I'd assume the lines in NPC's dialogues that are being highlighted, rather than player character's.

Don't get me wrong. I DO think that Vince is perfectly aware that a dialogue has to be kind a guessing game in order to be "fun" to play. I don't think that preventing players to "win" even when they give all the right answers is the funniest way to achieve that.

As for you question: given the text-heavy nature of his game, this passive skill of mine should work like this: The skill is high enough, you get a bunch of paragraphs in prose that describe in broad strokes the attitude of the character you are talking to, possibly at key points of the dialogue; the skill isn't high enough, you get nothing, or even better, you get misleading descriptions.

- Persuasion in your system seems the equivalent of the character level (general effectiveness while speaking). It seems also the most relevant factor in succeeding in dialogues, which is something I would gladly avoid. A "good" player to me should be able to win a conversation with a combination of normal, tagged and special lines, even with an uncharismatic character, at least at the basic degree of success.

I think this is where you are wrong.

A good player should not be able to win any situation with a character build that is wholly unsuited to it.

Just as the best master tactician shouldn't have a chance in a tougher combat encounter with a wimpy character, a character with the charisma of a potato should not be able to convince a seasoned politician, no matter how clever the player picks his dialogue lines.

The challenge is not in trying to win such situations (that should be impossible, and clearly so), the challenge is to avoid such situations - e.g. trying not to get into combat situations with a talker.


And "a basic degree of success" just isn't possible in most situations. You cannot be in combat and "win a little". You either win or lose.

In a conversation, there is a bit more freedom, but it depends extremely on the situation.

And I think this is where your are wrong, my friend. People fondly remember Baldur's Gate because you can solo-play both chapters with a bard (which is the shittier class in AD&D as far as combat is concerned) if you are a good enough player; or Dark Souls because you can go straight to the catacombs with a level 1 character; or Divinity: Original Sin because you can win a battle with a several under-levelled party by creating havoc on the battlefield via elemental combos. On the other hand, I've never heard of a sane person taking good about the Witcher 3 "you can't beat this monster at this level because I’ve decided so".


Good combat systems usually allow players that really know their shit to achieve the (apparently) impossible…


And you are also wrong on the second point. You can easily have various degrees of success in combat by adding optional objectives/goals to the encounter/mission. That same could also be true in a dialogue.

 

[thesheeep]

People fondly remember Baldur's Gate because you can solo-play both chapters with a bard (which is the shittier class in AD&D as far as combat is concerned) if you are a good enough player; or Dark Souls because you can go straight to the catacombs with a level 1 character; or Divinity: Original Sin because you can win a battle with a several under-levelled party by creating havoc on the battlefield via elemental combos. On the other hand, I've never heard of a sane person taking good about the Witcher 3 "you can't beat this monster at this level because I’ve decided so".

Baldur's Gate is D&D. In D&D, every character is designed for combat. Moreso in BG, where they almost completely ditched everything non-combat.
Some are harder to solo than others (and soloing itself requires a good player), yes, but still very much doable.
It is the whole point of the system.

Same with D:OS. There are no characters unsuited for battle in D:OS.
Of course you can win a battle under-levelled if your character builds are up to it.
But: You couldn't if they weren't, no matter your tacital thinking.

Dark Souls is not an RPG as TNW aims to be. Neither is Witcher 3. Both are action games with a certain RPG part.

All of your examples fail.

Good combat systems usually allows player to achieve the (apparently) impossible…

Action combat systems do, where player skill is vastly more important than character skill.
If you prefer that, this will be the wrong game for you and I hope you realize that before keeping on demanding those mechanics in an RPG.

And you are also wrong on the second point. You can easily have various degrees of success in combat by adding optional objectives/goals to the encounter/mission. That same could also be true in a dialogue.

Optional objectives are fine, sure. But I don't see how every encounter can have them.

 

[Dr Schultz]

People fondly remember Baldur's Gate because you can solo-play both chapters with a bard (which is the shittier class in AD&D as far as combat is concerned) if you are a good enough player; or Dark Souls because you can go straight to the catacombs with a level 1 character; or Divinity: Original Sin because you can win a battle with a several under-levelled party by creating havoc on the battlefield via elemental combos. On the other hand, I've never heard of a sane person taking good about the Witcher 3 "you can't beat this monster at this level because I’ve decided so".

Baldur's Gate is D&D. In D&D, every character is designed for combat. Moreso in BG, where they almost completely ditched everything non-combat.

Some are harder to solo than others (and soloing itself requires a good player), yes, but still very much doable.

It is the whole point of the system..

In AD&D (D&D 2nd Ed if you like it better) Bards and Thieves (particularly Bards) are so dramatically underpowered compared to the other classes that one of the main goals for the designers of the 3rd ed. was to close this gap. Which they did remarkably well.
Aside for that, my point was different: even though Baldur's Gate its a game designed around a balanced party of six characters it can be beatten with a single character of the weakest class available by a really good player.

Same with D:OS. There are no characters unsuited for battle in D:OS.

Of course you can win a battle under-levelled if your character builds are up to it.

You couldn't if they weren't, no matter your tacital thinking.

I can easily think to a dozen of ways to build a shit character in D:OS

Dark Souls is not an RPG as TNW aims to be. Neither is Witcher 3. Both are action games with a certain RPG part.

Not interested anymore in this kind of distinction. I could argue that Baldur's Gate is not a true RPG while Quest for Glory definitely is. But as I said, I’m not interested anymore in this kind of discussion. I’m more concerned about the quality of a game and its systems regardless its perceived genre.

All of your examples fail.

I would say the contrary. But feel free to keep your position. I'm not trying to convince anybody here. It’s just my personal point of view.

Good combat systems usually allows player to achieve the (apparently) impossible…

Action combat systems do, where player skill is vastly more important than character skill.

If you prefer that, this will be the wrong game for you and I hope you realize that before keeping on demanding those casual mechanics in an RPG.

I personally did it SEVERAL times in XCOM (the old-ones and the new-ones, particularly the old ones), Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Knights of Chalice, TOEE, Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Disgaea, Telephat Tactics and a bunch of other tactical games.

None of these games strike me as particularly casual or action oriented, which is my way to say that the idea that action games are about skill while tactical games are about stats has never been true. And I mean NEVER EVER. Not even before computers were invented.

And you are also wrong on the second point. You can easily have various degrees of success in combat by adding optional objectives/goals to the encounter/mission. That same could also be true in a dialogue.

Optional objectives are fine, sure. But I don't see how every encounter can have them.

It’s not necessary. You just need to have a certain number of optional goals in your game that are worth the player investment in his/her character build. Not every encounter/dialogue has to be designed this way.

 

[thesheeep]

Dr Schultz Something on your side messes up the formatting of your posts. Seems like it inserts line breaks after each line (even within quotes), making your posts look totally blown up. Or do you insert those manually?

Dark Souls is not an RPG as TNW aims to be. Neither is Witcher 3. Both are action games with a certain RPG part.

Not interested anymore in this kind of distinction. I could argue that Baldur's Gate is not a true RPG while Quest for Glory definitely is. But as I said, I’m not interested anymore in this kind of discussion. I’m more concerned about the quality of a game and its systems regardless its perceived genre.

Well, that's too bad, because a game is well defined by its genre.
In this case, the genre of the game is even the whole point of it for many people.

I personally did it SEVERAL times in XCOM (the old-ones and the new-ones, particularly the old ones), Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Knights of Chalice, TOEE, Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Disgaea, Telephat Tactics and a bunch of other tactical games.
None of these games strike me as particularly casual or action oriented, which is my way to say that the idea that action games are about skill while tactical games are about stats has never be true. And I mean NEVER EVER. Not even before computers were invented.

Ah, yes, when I talk about player skill, I am talking about action & twitch reflexes - which is what is afaik usually implied with that.
Of course, it requires skill to build a good character and make sound tactical decisions. But those are mental or intellectual skills, if you want - a lot of it is simply knowledge-, while action & twitch reflexes are of a far more physical nature.

I do not want any action & twitch reflex skills required in an RPG (that is not an Action-RPG).

 

[Black Angel]

Don't get me wrong. I DO think that Vince is perfectly aware that a dialogue has to be kind a guessing game in order to be "fun" to play. I don't think that preventing players to "win" even when they give all the right answers is the funniest way to achieve that.

I think what Vince meant to do is that he is going prevent players from 'winning' because, despite of giving the right answers, their character didn't give it the right way, which is what happens when the player character's skills aren't good enough.

Sorry to disappoint you but the answers are yes and no. Skills MUST determine the outcome. That's one of the key testaments of our faith. What the new system does (that the old one didn't) is that it gives you some flexibility and let you 'win' with the right answers IF your skill is good enough but not quite high enough. If you don't have the skills, it doesn't matter what you say as we can assume you're saying it wrong (like a kid trying to strike up a conversation with a girl using someone else's lines).

Obviously, we'll need further explanation as to what 'good enough skills vs. high enough skills' really means to go anywhere with this discussion, so, Vince, would you kindly explain?

As for you question: given the text-heavy nature of his game, this passive skill of mine should work like this: The skill is high enough, you get a bunch of paragraphs in prose that describe in broad strokes the attitude of the character you are talking to, possibly at key points of the dialogue; the skill isn't high enough, you get nothing, or even better, you get misleading descriptions.

I'm not sure having misleading descriptions simply because my character's skill isn't suffice would be 'fun'. Maybe like how Empathy perk from Fallout 2 worked will suffice, but I think it's better to keep a singular narrative text version across different characters and let players use their own wits on solving the problems that is an RPG NPCs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sorry to disappoint you but the answers are yes and no. Skills MUST determine the outcome. That's one of the key testaments of our faith. What the new system does (that the old one didn't) is that it gives you some flexibility and let you 'win' with the right answers IF your skill is good enough but not quite high enough. If you don't have the skills, it doesn't matter what you say as we can assume you're saying it wrong (like a kid trying to strike up a conversation with a girl using someone else's lines).

Obviously, we'll need further explanation as to what 'good enough skills vs. high enough skills' really means to go anywhere with this discussion, so, Vince, would you kindly explain?

Each line has a skill level (skill needed to make it work as intended). Each line has a default reaction (usually +1 or -1, in some cases +2 or -2). If your skill is higher than what's required, you improve the reaction (+1 would become +2, -1 would become 0). If your skill is less than what's required, you weaken the reaction (+1 becomes 0, -1 becomes -2). It's not all linear, so a -1 reaction to a lie might lead to +2 if you manage to make that lie more believable.

So if your skill is 1-2 levels below, you can still beat the final check by carefully considering what to say (or savescumming like there's no tomorrow).

 

[Fenix]

We will need demo that contain examples of that dialogue system to see how it played.

 

[Ranarama]

You shouldn't know if you succeeded or failed a conversation.

Succeed or fail a conversation? I think that very idea is part of the problem with RPG dialogue.