"Dumb" dialogue options, yay or nay?

Click here and disable ads!

A good way to go about it is to try and imagine how someone who is not, shall we say, very well spoken in real life might get through a normal day. While they may not resort to violence at every turn, they are certainly more likely to accept things at face value, miss details, or generally follow their physical urges. That is if it seems extremely pleasing at the moment, they're likely to do it. To truly make a dumb character worth while though, I think you'd have to set up a semi alternate route for them to take, or hell have it possible for them to end/ruin their game through grievous mistakes. Honestly, that should be an option for all characters, but I think it would be easiest to implement for a dumber one.

In the Democracy of Decadence, this option has my vote.

I agree, but I also tend to mainly buy food that tastes so good that I want to lick the plate when I'm done.

If you don't have these types dialogue options in the game at this point, how does the game play as a "dumb" character now? Just more limited dialogue options? From everything I've gathered to date, playing such a character just isn't a viable choice. I sure won't play AoD for the promised innovative tactical combat, (i.e. it's seemingly not one of the main focus points). I've yet to find a good argument to play a combat focused character. Sure you get some nifty traits which make you able to kill things in different ways, but I've got horse loads of games that allow me to do that. Now, games that allow me to finish the game in a talkative manner, and various ones at that, aren't that easy to come by. I always play a RPG with high INT/CHA/WIS-stats (or the likes) on my first time through. Is the game memorable that way, I'll play it again with a very different build, to see if my experience will be different. Most of the time that character will be a very combat focused brute, and the only game that has provided me with some satisfactory dialogue options to boot, is Arcanum. When I play a game in that way, I'm perfectly fine with my experience being limited in certain ways, by me being a retard. I'd expect that. However, in a game like AoD, I'd also expect that my dialogue options will match that character. Just having a combat focused character being denied certain dialogue options would be a shame. I'd like my dialogue to show my lower intelligence, not only for comic relief, but to flavor that character build. I'm honestly a bit disappointed that making such a character build memorable hasn't been a priority from day one.

You've given us so many good solutions on so many classical problems in RPGs I'm getting a bit spoiled, I guess. However, I get the impression that you've been intent to create the perfect game for the guys (like me) who always pics the high INT/CHA/WIS-route, and most of the time end up being let down. I don't see as many "rewards", in lack of better wording, for playing a combat focused character, as I see for the various talkative characters. I'm not saying they sholud be equally balanced, but in a game as focused on dialogue as Aod I'd most certainly expect what you write in your OP. I'm perfectly fine with a "dumb" character being denied some choices, that only makes sense. I'm also fine, (to a lesser extent), with that character not having as many unique quests and stuff to do as a more talkative one. What would be a true let down, however, would be if a "dumb" character build don't have anything to differentiate it from a smarter one, in any other way than fewer dialogue options and more effective ways to kill some one.

Yes. Plus some extra dialogue options/quests/paths. When I made this thread, I meant flavor - unique text, reflecting your character's low INT background, not the actual options.

Anyone read "The Stars My Destination" by Alfred Bester? Awesome book, highly recommend. Anyway, the main character, Gulliver Foyle wasn't dumb, he was simply uneducated, and that's the kind of character I wanted to create. If anything I used Foyle as a prototype.

I didn't promise anything innovative or overly tactical, but combat IS one of the main focus points and those who had a chance to play the game liked it a lot and even suggested to make a dungeon crawler game using the same combat system later. We also have an article coming up explaining the combat system and illustrating it with screenshots.

Because it's fun? I mean playing combat-focused characters in general. I played ToEE 8 or 9 times. The combat system is amazing. These things are subjective though.

See above.

Combat skills will open some doors and sometimes create shortcuts that a talkative character will never see. Playing a combat character does NOT mean that all you do is fight. There are different dialogue/gameplay options, reflecting what your character is. I can post an example, if you like.

I can live without them, although I sure as hell would appreciate them. If you're seriously considering implementing them, then go for it (I wouldn't even mind waiting longer for the game to be released, really, I'm that patient ).

Well, I vote yes. That was the general gist of my post, actually. I really liked what I read in you OP, and more of that would definitely be a good thing. I wouldn't mind waiting another year (or two) if that's what it takes to implement a good "dumb" way of playing the game. It has to be of the type in your OP or even better, like the suggestion Section8 wrote, for it to be justified though. I'll play it that way for sure, and if I weren't sold already, it'd be a big selling point. Be sure to pimp it properly if you decide to implement it.

Seeing as this was one of my favorite novels during my childhood, you've got me sold (again). My uncle has the complete Galaxy Science Fiction from the beginning to the mid seventies, loved to read them when I was visiting during vacations. I have it in hard cover myself, along with The demolished man and Psychoshop.

Sounds very good, and I'm looking forward to the article. It's been a long time since the combat system-specifics has been up for discussion. Come to think of it, if I recall correctly you once mentioned to release a demo showing of the combat system. Will there be one?=

Well, I love Jagged Alliances, and of course I see the incentive to play a combat focused character in a RPG. There is, after all, a reason to the action RPG to RPG-ratio, these days. However, I've never found an RPG that's fully satisfying in this regard, and it's not why I play RPGs in the first place. After a certain point in Fallout, combat always becomes a chore, and in Arcanum it is a pain the entire way through. For TOEE, I played it when it came out, but I had some serious troubles with all the bugs and gave up. Seeing all the praise it gets around here, I'll definitely try it again with the circle of 8 patch.

Sounds great, I'll expect some extreme collar grabbing options for my dumb, brute, mercenary. And an example is always welcome.

As much as I like Section8's dialogues (I wish I could write like that), I think he took it into a different direction (from a Foyle-like character). In my example, the "dumb" character is smart enough to ask "what kinda guard?" to estimate the threat and smart enough to back off (if he choses so, of course).

Loved that book from the first pages.

Education: None
Skills: None
Merits: None
Recommendations: None

Stunted by lack of ambition. Not recommended for promotion. Has reached a dead end.

Psychoshop is pretty cool too. I love old sci-fi. Have you read the story (Campbell's?) that The Thing is based on? Awesome stuff.

Most likely. I want to test the system so we plan to make an arena demo, but I don't have time for that at the moment.

So, what's your perfect combat system then? What features are a must? What pitfalls should be avoided?

I have to leave right now, will post it later on today.

"I kill you filthy, Feng!"

Come on, you know you want to put that in there somewhere!

Anyway, the example. Let's use a quest that's been mentioned many times before - rescuing a kidnapped noble. There are many ways to do it: assassinating the raiders' leader, negotiating ransom, scouting the area and giving the info to the guards, involving the Thieves Guild, etc. So, here is an option for a fighter:

- The prisoner. Hand him over now.
- Who the hell are you?
- *pull out your weapon* Hand the prisoner over now. I won't ask again.

[intimidation check based on your Str and highest weapon skill; the check determines how many raiders turn hostile. The leader will not submit, so the only difference is whether you are fighting him alone or him and six of his buddies.]

If there are raiders left (up to six):

- You follow *my* orders now.
- Why?
- You follow me or you follow him *point at the raiders' leader's dead body*. Your choice.
- What are your orders, captain?
- Practice offensive skills
or
- Practive defensive skills
or
- Practice infiltration tactics
or
- (give specific orders related to active quests). You can't recruit more raiders, so when you run out of them, it's over.

Ah, I guess this fits with 4 being the lower limit for stats. It's totally fine by me. I'll definitely role play Gulliver Foyle at some point, if you make it possible.

Yeah, me too. If it's "Who Goes There" you mean, I have it as a part of a big sci-fi compilation (had to check if it were in it right now ), but I've yet to read it. Only read the novels in there by authors I already knew, like Heinlein, H.G. Wells and Asimov. It's very old and torn, so I'm reluctant to actually read in it, many loose pages and the such. Perhaps I should order it online if it's as good as "The Stars My Destination". Wasn't aware that The Thing were based on it either. Guess Howard Hawkes "The Thing from Another World" is based on it too?

Hehe, if I've only knew how that would be. There is so many different systems I enjoy based on different things. And I tend to give the combat systems in games that I enjoy for other reasons than the combat system more credit than they deserve. Before I found The Codex I often found myself defending the crappy IE-combat in PS:T. Games I play because of the tactical combat, like the Jagged Alliances or UFO: Enemy Unknown, rely on squad based tactics. As your game don't have a party many of my preferences, or "requirements", will not apply. I read up a bit on what you've revealed about the combat system to refresh my memory, and there are a lot of things that sound very good. I like the various perks, and making called shots/hits. The restrictive AP-policy also seem like a good incentive for keeping an edge on combat. And it's very reassuring to hear that most opponents will require 2-3 direct hits to be done with. HP-behemoths, as you say, has never been something I've liked. You've avoided a lot, if not all, of the pitfalls that come to my mind for a single character-based RPG. The only thing that's nagging me at this point, is that I'd prefer a hex-based grid. But that discussion has been thoroughly covered already, I just happen to have another opinion than you. My comment above, about the combat, came out a bit wrong. I've been following AoDs development since it was in 2d, so of course I know that making an enjoyable combat system has been a big priority. What I've should have written, is that the combat most probably won't be what will make me replay the game. It's mostly because of preference, I think. Single character-based combat will never give me the same as squad based combat. I feel you deserve a more comprehensive answer, but I'm busy with an analysis due til Monday, so this'll suffice for now.

Does the bolded part mean this is the only place in the game where you can recruit followers, these specific raiders, or is it part of the dialogue options?

Anyway, I was aware of the player being able to have NPCs fighting along his side, but these practice-options are new to me. How do they work? To they just get better in that specific skill, or perhaps do I become better in that skill? How long does it take? What does infiltration tactics entail for them and my character? And what consequences will it have for me if I order them to one thing over another? How many different quests or tasks may I order them to take part in? Does these raiders differ from other followers? In that case how many types of followers are there?

The game seems so complex at this point, my fears of balance issues and bugs are growing exponentially.

No, what I meant is that you can get up to six raiders in this location and use them to wreck havoc, create diversions, etc until they die one by one. They are not followers and they will fight separately, living up to their non-player characters name.

They get better, which means that they may live longer. You can also improve their equipment.

Well, let's say you want them to storm a location, a small digging outpost, for example, guarded by soldiers, surrounded by a gate, etc. If the raiders fail the infiltration check, they will start at 8-square distance, will be noticed by the tower guard and will be hit by ranged weapons, so expect to lose a raider or two before you reach the gate. If they can inflitrate the outpost successfully, they will surprise the guards and gain a tactical advantage.

You can train them for as long as you want. The longer they train, the better they are. Nobody lives forever though.

As many as you like.

Types? Followers? Can you be a bit more specific?

It's not that complex.

I'd agree. By the way, what kind of things will NPCs react to at this point? Will they talk about/react to, say, the fall/weakening of a faction, the death of some important guy, what you are wearing (expensive clothing to show wealth) etc.

How many different etcs will there be? How many different tasks can I order them to do? Also, by them fighting separately I take it that you mean that the player have no control over them. They them selves will still cooperate in the same manner as opponents will cooperate against the player, right?

Will this happen in front of your eyes, i.e. it will happen when you arrive at the location, or will you be "teleported" there, or will it happen regardless of you being there, and if so, will you be able to stumble upon the battle in the middle of it? This reminds me, how is time handled in the game, i.e. what does an in game hour translate to in real time? Oh, and this sounds super awesome, btw.

Aha, so there is no negative consequences for picking one skill over another? Other than spending time on it, that is? How long must a raider train in one skill to get better? Can I train each raider independently?

..until they die. Great, but what I meant was how many quests in the game allow me to make use of NPCs in the ways you described above. From what you write I gather it's all the quests where it will make sense they could partake in.

Followers --> NPCs you can order to do your dirty work. This specific example involves raiders, and they can practice infiltration tactics. Can NPCs from the various guilds or houses practice similar skills related to their trades?

No, it's not like it's the new Oblivion or anything.

Yes. All clothes/armor sets have a hidden value tag. Besides, there is a Prestige rep stat as well. People will talk to you about recent events and events you are associated with.

Only one - attack something. After all, they are raiders and they are not really that good in commerce or general education. How you use those attacks is up to you, i.e. support, diversion, even assassination that can't be linked to you.

Yes.

When you get there. Time is not measured at all, but some quests are timed. Paradox.

No, they train as a group. Better is subjective. Is 57 better than 55? You betcha! Is it good? Not really.

All quests where brute force makes sense will have an option of using "hired help" - guildsmen, raiders, mercs, etc. That way a creative diplomat can still enjoy good ol-fashioned violence.

No. They do it without your help.

Excellent idea, VD.