Your opinion on diplomatic path in RPGs

[atoga]

Problem with the diplomatic way is that it's often boring and badly written. This could be remedied by having way more dialogue paths - bribery, bullshitting by making up facts or trying to confuse, sucking up, showing force (classic gun to the head), verbal bashing, making a formal, rational argument, etc. should all be possibilities in most situations (and depending on the situation, they may be more or less likely to work); doing so would give the player more input (which is lacking for diplomatic-types in most games) and create a bit more interest and challenge for diplomatic types. Also, there shoudl be more skills, abilities, items, and whatnot for the player to customize their character's style.

I've yet to play a CRPG where the most fun path is to go around with an entirely diplomatic character and make everybody happy. More diverse quests for diplomatic-types need to be explored, and better dialogue needs to be written (I hate those options where you're trying to bullshit someone and all you can say is something lame like, "You'd better let me do this, and quick, becausemy ass is on the line and some higher power will kick your ass if you stop me.")

 

[Spazmo]

Role-Player: I must be truly desperate for something to play, because hearing about ToB again actually makes me want to play it. I'll be okay--just need to breathe deep and remember again the butchered Machine of Lum the Mad and Deck of Many Things ToB had. There, much better.

I disagree with you on the subject of the Master. Before becoming the Master, he was Dr. Richard Grey, a man of science educated in Vault City. So when the Vault Dweller presents him with the facts on his super mutant's sterility, I don't see why he wouldn't immediately understand that his plan wasn't going to work. He was probably already severely conflicted by the harm his Unity was doing in order to bring about the greater good. Knowing that it was all for naught made him end his tragic effort with a bang (pardon the pun).

On diplomacy in RPGs: it should just be one path among several. Also, as stated above, it should also involve lying, manipulation, trickery, etc. Getting other people to do the dirty, bloody work for you is an interesting mechanic, but how do you arrange it so that you don't just get endless combat situations where you watch your cronies smack the bad guys around and dole out the odd potion when said cronies get roughed up themselves? Conversely, just pointing out the target of your intended violence to your muscle in a bar (or what have you) and simply having them report back to you with a "Hey, boss, we [SUCCEEDED] at killin' dem!" dialogue box after a quick Fallout-2-sex-style fade to black isn't much better. And, of course, letting the player take control of his pinch-hitters (I'm on a roll!) leads to the CNPCs we'd all rather avoid. So how do you make it work, Mr. Fancy Pants Aspiring Game Maker Man?

One thing I think shouldn't be provided for is total pacifist characters. Most RPGs are set in dangerous worlds--or at least dangerous parts of safe ones. Any character who isn't willing to kill, injure or otherwise... inconvenience other people probably isn't cut from the right stuff to be a Saviour of the World. Basically, it's ridiculous to design the whole game in such a manner that the player will never be forced to attack or defend himself against an enemy just because some people want to play pacifist. And besides, any game that lets total pacifists win was probably designed for tree-hugging Green voting vegan pansies!

 

[Human Shield]

I just realized something...

NPCs can never succeed in persuasion skill rolls.

The player always has a choice to agree or disagree. NPCs can be talked into actions they follow through, but players are never realiable and besides loosing control of your character, you can't be talked out of something.

Even you talk a NPC guard to assist you in, there should still be a chance that he still pulls the alarm on you. Diplomats should require player skill in being careful and on your toes, NPC actions should not be safe bets.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Spazmo, that is a good point, no doubt. I just feel that, precisely because he was a man of science, he should've been aware of the problem earlier. I just get the feeling he made the plan and didn't analyze all possible problems of it, or that he just made a plan, gave orders, and sit back, not following trough all of the facets of the plan.

 

[Oyarsa]

Mortals are so limited

One thing I think shouldn't be provided for is total pacifist characters. Most RPGs are set in dangerous worlds--or at least dangerous parts of safe ones. Any character who isn't willing to kill, injure or otherwise... inconvenience other people probably isn't cut from the right stuff to be a Saviour of the World. Basically, it's ridiculous to design the whole game in such a manner that the player will never be forced to attack or defend himself against an enemy just because some people want to play pacifist. And besides, any game that lets total pacifists win was probably designed for tree-hugging Green voting vegan pansies!

How utterly naive. Britain pulled out of India and the Civil rights movement was advanced mostly by pacifists, not to mention a good chunk of the soviet breakup. Are there " tree-hugging Green voting vegan pansies"? You bet, and they're worthless. Pacifists can be effective, subversive, and can change the world, or at least their (not insubstantial) corner of it.

Also who said a pacifist cannot defend himself? There are ways to neutralize a threat without killing or even permanently harming someone.

Pacifism in a game context would only apply to sentient enemies. That hypothetical gator someone mentioned comes after you, you and your troupe take it down and make some nice shoes (giving a reaction bonus). And no one said you cannot destroy the engines of evil.

Think big. CRPG development will never progress if these kinds of issues aren't pushed. They'll just be fancier rehashes of the same things we've been playing for tha last 15+ years.

btw, rumor has it the original Saviour of the World opted for crucifixion meaning all these saviour-come-latelies can't cut it. ;-)

 

[S4ur0n27]

When saving the world involves venturing in the wasteland infested with scorpions, rats and shit, yes pacifists are worthless.

Or even having to fend off fanatics dark jedis or stupid mindless goblins, there's no way a talking character can get out of it.

Civil rights movement are basically humans trying to convince other inteligent human beings.

 

[Spazmo]

Re: Mortals are so limited

How utterly naive. Britain pulled out of India and the Civil rights movement was advanced mostly by pacifists, not to mention a good chunk of the soviet breakup. Are there " tree-hugging Green voting vegan pansies"? You bet, and they're worthless. Pacifists can be effective, subversive, and can change the world, or at least their (not insubstantial) corner of it.

Right. You know how Ghandi managed to beat the British? By sitting there and getting clubbed half to death. Does that sound like any fun for an RPG?

Also who said a pacifist cannot defend himself? There are ways to neutralize a threat without killing or even permanently harming someone.

So you replace all guns in the game with stun guns. The game plays exactly the same way as if you were shooting people with a gun except all the bad guys come back to kill you again and again and again. Whoopedy do. Ever see that episode of Firefly where the captain captures that one guy with the blue tattoos and the wacky knife? He tells the prisoner to go back to his boss and explain that it was all a misunderstanding and there's no need for trouble etc. The prisoner responds that he'll personally hunt down the captain and murder him. The captain then kicks the prisoner into the ship's engine. That's how you get it done, chum.

Pacifism in a game context would only apply to sentient enemies. That hypothetical gator someone mentioned comes after you, you and your troupe take it down and make some nice shoes (giving a reaction bonus). And no one said you cannot destroy the engines of evil.

Well now you're redefining the argument of the pacifist. The idea was to provide realisitic play options for a character who just couldn't stand to kill anything at all. If he's okay with killing monsters and evil people, the game plays the exact same damn way as it would otherwise, assuming the character is good.

Think big. CRPG development will never progress if these kinds of issues aren't pushed. They'll just be fancier rehashes of the same things we've been playing for tha last 15+ years.

Sure. In the meantime, I'd rather not play a game where you have to develop your 'organize sit-in' and 'chain yourself to trees' skills.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Problem with the diplomatic way is that it's often boring....

Depends on how it's implemented. Take Geneforge, for example. Imo, the talking and exploring parts were great, while the combat part was rather boring especially if you are an overloaded shaper. Yet, overall, the game is great. That's the direction I wanted to take and that's why I focused on diplomacy in a broad definition of the word.

I approach each situation like a good puzzle. You go in, observe, gather info, and then figure out how you can handle it. In many cases you'd have to rely on third parties and that makes things more complicated. That should be taken into consideration. There are always more then one diplomatic path, so you'd have to choose and figure out gameplay affecting consequences. Hopefully that would be fun. That's what I would like to see in games myself.

Getting other people to do the dirty, bloody work for you is an interesting mechanic, but how do you arrange it so that you don't just get endless combat situations where you watch your cronies smack the bad guys around and dole out the odd potion when said cronies get roughed up themselves? Conversely, just pointing out the target of your intended violence to your muscle in a bar (or what have you) and simply having them report back to you with a "Hey, boss, we [SUCCEEDED] at killin' dem!" dialogue box after a quick Fallout-2-sex-style fade to black isn't much better.

You are not in any control of third parties. They go in, they fight if they have to, and it's up to you to stand and watch or to proceed to your previously blocked destination. There is a situation, where you can set one group of people against another under false pretenses. If you wait long enough for them to figure out what's really happening, you'd regret that, although even then you'd have a way out but you'd pay through the nose.

Anyway, there won't be any armies fighting each other, there won't be 200hp behemoths, so combat will be fast. However, like I said, you don't have to stick around and watch. In many cases, third parties you can turn to, won't be equivalents of hired guns either. Suppose, you need to talk to a prisoner. The prisoner is in a small guarded keep, naturally. Other then a very popular kill 'em method, and some sneaking / lockpicking, you can
a. talk to the guards, find out who visits prisoners and disguise yourself as one of such people
b. talk to the commandant and sell him a story to get his permission to talk to the prisoner
c. talk to the underworld to be smuggled in and out
d. talk to the merchants who deliver some goods to the keep
e. talk to one of the noble houses who'd use its influence to get your inside, assuming that your loyalty and worth to the house is previously proven.
So, no fighting here.

 

[Sigurd]

Re: Mortals are so limited

Also who said a pacifist cannot defend himself? There are ways to neutralize a threat without killing or even permanently harming someone.

If you know a way to peacefully neutralize a man aiming a shotgun dead center-mass, I'll give you anything for the secret.