Visually Explicit Skill-Checks

[Skall]

These often appear in conversations/choose-your-own-adventure segments, and are often colour-coded or enhanced with icons to let the player know they're associated with specific skills/attributes. Below is a decent example from FTL:

There are positives and negatives to explicitly indicating these, and I'm of a mixed opinion on which is preferable, e.g., while clear indicators might encourage skipping through content and just clicking on the prettified choice, they can also inform the player how different skills are used and reassure them that they didn't waste any points pumping them.

So, what are your thoughts on:

1. Colours/icons being associated with skill/attribute/ability-specific options.
2. Grayed-out/not-selectable options for skills which are missing/too low.
3. Clear indicators for rewards/costs of options.
4. Clear indicators for skill/attribute/ability scores necessary to successfully choose the option.

 

[Calcium]

I'm a fan of the system used in Age of Decadence where you're told what skills a certain dialogue choice is checking, but not whether it's going to fail or succeed(except in the case where you greatly exceed the stat requirement). In the case of FTL - a game which I don't really consider and RPG - I think that explicitly showing the player unique options is better.

 

[Usermane]

1. I would prefer a game to have a very minimal sort of identifier if it actually needed one at all. Different colors for different skills would be rather jarring for my unreasonable preferences, too, unless they only differentiated between different general types of skills instead of the specific ones themselves.

2. Personally I think this would detract from the game, and only serve to remind the player he isn't actually having a conversation. New Vegas had a very nice system of altering the dialogue choices depending on the Character's proficiency--a troglodyte's dialogue option with a speech check would be something embarrassingly uncharismatic.

3. The best execution of this I believe would be through the use of dialogue instead of game mechanics. For example: "I'll buy that for three gold pieces." As opposed to "Okay, I'll buy it" [3gp].

4. I think this kind of information would also be best given to the player through dialogue, but through the person the player is speaking to instead of their dialogue options. "I'll only give this quest to a [Class] who can [Skill/Spell]." Normally this information is just way too abstract and specific for that to work, however. I've never thought of this before, thanks for bringing it up.

My preferred genuine role-playing rpg would hide all the numbers entirely, becoming in essence a highly open ended choose-your-own-adventure book, but I have no idea if that would even work or manage to be fun if it did.

 

[adrix89]

The most ideal system would be where all choices would be based on specific factors but there is not indication from where they come from, just choices that the character would have at the moment.

 

[Excidium II]

Not making explicit the skill being used in the choice is beyond retarded. It's hiding important information and taking control from the player for no benefit besides larping.

The real problem is stat checks being the equivalent of awesome buttons in most CRPGs featuring dialog checks. Pick the tagged option and something awesome has to happen.

 

[J1M]

Presenting the player with interesting options and then telling them it failed just encourages save scumming.

How about every dialog option in the game is tied to a skill check, and if you fail the skill check you can't see the dialog option?

 

[Excidium II]

How about every dialog option in the game is tied to a skill check, and if you fail the skill check you can't see the dialog option?

That's stupid as all hell, your character is failing actions you didn't tell him to take. Who's playing the game?

Also this is the problem with CRPGs, you are taking failing a skill check as a failure game state.

 

[adrix89]

Not making explicit the skill being used in the choice is beyond retarded. It's hiding important information and taking control from the player for no benefit besides larping.

So Role Playing in a Role Playing Game is retarded?
What IS the point of the choices then if it doesn't define your character? Picking the option with the greatest reward? And then you complain the skills checks that are just the most efficient options are now "awesome buttons" when this is exactly what you want? And now you are scared that you might not know this "important information"?
What do you want skill checks to do?

You call me retarded but you do not make any fucking sense!

 

[Calcium]

Not making explicit the skill being used in the choice is beyond retarded. It's hiding important information and taking control from the player for no benefit besides larping.

So Role Playing in a Role Playing Game is retarded?
What IS the point of the choices then if it doesn't define your character? Picking the option with the greatest reward? And then you complain the skills checks that are just the most efficient options are now "awesome buttons" when this is exactly what you want? And now you are scared that you might not know this "important information"?
What do you want skill checks to do?

You call me retarded but you do not make any fucking sense!

You're missing where he says:

The real problem is stat checks being the equivalent of awesome buttons in most CRPGs featuring dialog checks. Pick the tagged option and something awesome has to happen.

I think what he's getting at is that special dialogue options are too often thrown in simply to reward the player for choosing them, thus branding them "awesome buttons". Perhaps what would be better - as well as contributing to the roleplaying aspect - is if dialogue options tied to specific skills didn't always shower the player in rewards for choosing them, but had more interesting/subtle effects, perhaps such as revealing some piece of the lore which, granted that the player remembered it, could be useful later on.

sorry for the commas

 

[Excidium II]

Not making explicit the skill being used in the choice is beyond retarded. It's hiding important information and taking control from the player for no benefit besides larping.

So Role Playing in a Role Playing Game is retarded?
What IS the point of the choices then if it doesn't define your character? Picking the option with the greatest reward? And then you complain the skills checks that are just the most efficient options are now "awesome buttons" when this is exactly what you want? And now you are scared that you might not know this "important information"?
What do you want skill checks to do?

You call me retarded but you do not make any fucking sense!

Role Playing is making your character to do stuff. There isn't much more to it than that. And by important information I mean the fact checks are being made, which more often than not are conscious efforts by the character.

I want stat checks to check stats. Just that. Something happening whether you succeed or fail and by what degree, a result that is logical and not necessarily good or bad.

 

[J1M]

How about every dialog option in the game is tied to a skill check, and if you fail the skill check you can't see the dialog option?

That's stupid as all hell, your character is failing actions you didn't tell him to take. Who's playing the game?

Also this is the problem with CRPGs, you are taking failing a skill check as a failure game state.

You have carried some baggage into the assumptions you made in your response.

Think of it like this:
-if the character doesn't have an evil skill of at least 3, he wouldn't think of keeping the quest item for himself and has another quest resolution option
-if the character doesn't have an evil skill of at least 8, he wouldn't think of murdering the quest giver and taking the quest reward without doing the quest at all
-if the character has a medical skill of at least 5, he can offer to treat the Duke's cough in a conversation that otherwise has nothing to do with that topic
-if you don't have a barter of 3, you can't sell items to merchants
-if you don't have intelligence 6, you can't even talk to the wizard
etc.

 

[Excidium II]

That's awful. Just makes the already bad implementation even worse.

 

[Excidium II]

To be more stimulating: There's two fundamental problems.

You're making the availability of options based on the player's stat level. Sometimes it makes sense for options to not be available, but making it universal is very bad design. For instance none of those scenarios there should be "gated" by character stats.

And you are only taking into account the character's stats when circumstances should also play an important role, making checks easier or harder to pass.

 

[Mastermind]

Role Playing is making your character to do stuff.

I make Doom Guy do stuff (splatter demons, mostly).

 

[Excidium II]

Role Playing is making your character to do stuff.

I make Doom Guy do stuff (splatter demons, mostly).

See, you're playing the role of this Doom Guy character. Video games and RPGs have a lot in common.

 

[Absinthe]

There are some kinds of information that the player wants regardless of whether or not you show it. The question you should be asking yourself is "If I don't present this info, will players get in the habit of consulting a game guide to figure it out anyway?" If so, then present the information and save 'em the hassle. If the game is picky about skill checks and the need for successes, then players will naturally want to know which skills they're using so that they play to their strengths. From a roleplaying perspective, while you can certainly drop surprise checks on players, it is typically inappropriate to leave players unaware of what their own choices mean for their character's actions.

In other words, it's generally a good idea to label your skill checks. I don't agree with showing which skills result in success before you select the option though. And I don't think skill checks should be automatic "wins" for high skills either. There should be moments where despite being a skillcheck, it is simply the wrong skill to use at the time or that you need more than just skills - you also need the right actions/decisions/materials/etc. to back it up - and that different skills provide different results. Otherwise, players will just blindly pick the skillcheck whenever their skill is high. But I don't think that's a fault of displaying the skillcheck. That's a sign that there are deeper issues with the nature of the options you provide the player.

 

[Lemming42]

It's worth identifying skill checks because it's probably the most immediately satisfying way to show that your non-combat skill choices actually did matter and are affecting the game.

No need to turn every dialogue window into a grand colour-coded work of art with all the colours of the rainbow splintered across it, but the tags showing you what skill you're going to use (preferably without telling you if you'll succeed or not) are a good idea.

As for the concept of greyed-out options that the player doesn't meet the requirements for, it's more fun to let the player pick them anyway then have them enter a fail state.

The way it's done in FTL works fine because the unique options are always down to having a certain species in your crew, having a highly updated system on your ship, having special items etc.

 

[Mastermind]

you wouldn't need to show non-combat skills matter if non-combat skills actually did something obvious, like give you options in conversation that go beyond additional lines to choose from. If I ever make a fulll feature RPG I can guarantee the dumbed down fallout conversation model would be flushed down the toilet and you'll be able to do all sorts of cool things like have your character read the emotions (and if they're skilled enough, get a summary of their thoughts) of whoever they talk to, and during conversation get the option to alter lines so as to manipulate the other person in a direction you want, all prone to failure, and if you're inept enough, discovery, based on your skills. This is really how RPG conversation should've progressed from the daggerfall model but even bethesda went for the retarded planescape/bg/fallout model and their natural evolution, the dialogue wheel.

the current implementation of skill checks are the equivalent of combat in which you only have one attack and the only deviation from it are the occasional critical hit (over which you have no control). I don't mind critical hits but I expect more from a combat system and people should expect more from non-combat skills.

 

[Skall]

you wouldn't need to show non-combat skills matter if non-combat skills actually did something obvious, like give you options in conversation that go beyond additional lines to choose from. If I ever make a fulll feature RPG I can guarantee the dumbed down fallout conversation model would be flushed down the toilet and you'll be able to do all sorts of cool things like have your character read the emotions (and if they're skilled enough, get a summary of their thoughts) of whoever they talk to, and during conversation get the option to alter lines so as to manipulate the other person in a direction you want, all prone to failure, and if you're inept enough, discovery, based on your skills. This is really how RPG conversation should've progressed from the daggerfall model but even bethesda went for the retarded planescape/bg/fallout model and their natural evolution, the dialogue wheel.

the current implementation of skill checks are the equivalent of combat in which you only have one attack and the only deviation from it are the occasional critical hit (over which you have no control). I don't mind critical hits but I expect more from a combat system and people should expect more from non-combat skills.

I tend to agree, although less binary dialogue systems are a much bigger issue altogether. Out of curiosity, why did you use Daggerfall as the base to theoretically build on (from what I recall, it was a fairly standard keyword system)?

For what it's worth, I prefer to have some visual signifier of a skill/attribute/whatever being checked in dialogue. Not only is it a confirmation of that element actually being referenced in-game, it makes me wonder about how other talents/builds would affect conversations. For this reason I don't think it's necessary to show every possible option, especially if it doesn't make sense, e.g., elf-only options being displayed for a human character, but it can limit role-playing options (all of a sudden I *want* to pick those evil options) and clutter the interface with lots of negative outcomes. Perhaps a reminder of the player's scores in the individual skills could help, or just better implementation of NPCs who are naturally more "weak" to charm vs. intimidate vs. beguile, etc.

The one aspect of skill signifiers I have trouble settling on is the urge to always use them because they often serve as magic buttons. It's very rarely better to *not* use them, so what would be a good strategy for discouraging automatically choosing them? Obviously if they're colour-coded to show failure states it becomes obvious that they're not always a great idea, but that's a rather brute-force approach. It also removes the risk element, but due to the binary-nature of skill-checks, failing them is usually a very harsh punishment. Thoughts?

 

[Mastermind]

Out of curiosity, why did you use Daggerfall as the base to theoretically build on (from what I recall, it was a fairly standard keyword system)?

I liked the combination of tone, skill and reputation used to automatically generate questions and/or answers. The player didn't pick from three different options in which one was the skill check, you just chose what you wanted to know about and the characters interacted automatically based on your stats. It was simple and a lot more could be done with it but it's a solid foundation to build on.

The one aspect of skill signifiers I have trouble settling on is the urge to always use them because they often serve as magic buttons. It's very rarely better to *not* use them, so what would be a good strategy for discouraging automatically choosing them? Obviously if they're colour-coded to show failure states it becomes obvious that they're not always a great idea, but that's a rather brute-force approach. It also removes the risk element, but due to the binary-nature of skill-checks, failing them is usually a very harsh punishment. Thoughts?

I'd remove them altogether and make persuasion a game in which your purpose is to put the other person into the state of mind where they tell you what you want to know (Oblivion tried to do this, in an overly simplified and awkward way). Your conversation skills could let you read people better so you can see what they do and don't react well to and at higher levels even predict how they'd react and your character probes accordingly. The lines available to you would all be based on skills, and those resulting from higher skill levels would not necessarily be better, they would simply increase your persuasion range as they will work on some people but not others (this could even be implemented over a current fallout style "pick lines from a list" dialogues). My approach would probably be more expensive and time consuming for a developer to implement but IMO if an RPG focuses enough on conversations then it's worth actually putting in the effort.

 

[Glop_dweller]

How about every dialog option in the game is tied to a skill check, and if you fail the skill check you can't see the dialog option?

This would be my preferred way to handle it; to have the engine evaluate the PC at every conversation, and filter out any option [tree] beyond their reach or below their notice. Although that doesn't preclude having two or more variant options about the same subject or course of action. For instance one of these ~not filtered out, might not lead to success, but would take them as far as they could go with their current stats and skill level; and could make the point obvious that they were simply not prepared for the task at hand, and that things might have gone better if they had been.

Of skill checks themselves, we are at a point (or close to it) where it becomes practical to include visual and aural cues about action outcome. Where failing to pick a lock might actually show the lock pick break off in the lock [jamming it], or where failure to climb a thing, might actually show the misstep, leading to the fall... Or where the silver-tongued diplomat [about to ply his trade on the unsuspecting county official]... gets rebuked before he starts, and told "I don't want to hear it, I have a headache! Come back next week."

 

[JarlFrank]

The way Arcanum did it was best.

 

[deuxhero]

There's nothing wrong with graying out unusable options if it's reasonable the player character would even know it's an option like "I'll give you 500 dough for it" if the player doesn't have 500 dough. The alternative is making it not visible or making it selectable and having the player told he doesn't have enough dough, both of which have their problems (Player won't know he can pay 500 dough and the player might not know he doesn't have 500 dough)..

Can't think of any non-item based examples where it would be called for though.

 

[gaussgunner]

I'm not a fan of dialogue choices at all. But if a game has choices with skill checks, I would at least like to know what they are so I'm not wasting time by blindly playing to my characters' weaknesses.