"Dumb" dialogue options, yay or nay?

[Vault Dweller]

Quick question: what do you guys think of dumb dialogue options? Example:

INT>6 (that's just one path among many options)

- I'd like you to appraise something for me. *show map*
- Wise choice. Many people sell very valuable items without appraising for only a fraction of their real price. For 50 coins I'd be glad to research this extremely valuable artifact for you.
- I don't have any, so let's find another way.
- Another way?
- I thought that if I let you live, you would be grateful enough to tell me all you know and don't know about the map.
- Here is a deal. I won’t call the guard outside my house, and you will pay me 60 coins. How does that sound to you?
- Do you *really* think you can scare me with a farmer in a rusty armor?
- This should be fun. GUARD!!!
...

low INT:


- Have something to sell you. *show map*
- Wise choice. Many people sell very valuable items without appraising for only a fraction of their real price. For 50 coins I'd be glad to research this extremely valuable artifact for you.
- Tell me now, pay you later.
- Unfortunately, that doesn’t really work that way.
- Works now *put your hand on your weapon*
- There is a guard outside. Do you think you can handle him?
- What kinda guard? Locals?
- No, the Imperial Guards enforce peace in Teron, you don’t want to mess with them.
- Tough outfit, they. Talk to you later.

Needless to say, dumb characters will not be able to be loremasters or con artists for obvious reasons and their options will be very limited by the low intelligence. Still worth adding?

 

[Astromarine]

Different speech modes for more direct blunt types, yes please. Deliberately idiotic choices that will get the character in trouble (like him trying to be "clever" and out-conning a con, or bluffing in a stupid way), yes please.

"Duuuuur, pretty shiny. Give pretty shiny, me likey" retarded dialogue, please by the love of all that is holy, no. For that, I have the Internet, thank you very much.

 

[Ladonna]

If there are ways an idiot can complete quests, and bring a new level to the game, then its definately worth it.

Think Arcanum but perhaps adding a number of 'Dumbies only' quests. Its always nice to stumble across something you never found before.

And make sure you have fun doing them. I imagine it could be hilarious thinking up idiotic answers....if you have any trouble, I am sure plenty of forums can inspire you.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Different speech modes for more direct blunt types, yes please. Deliberately idiotic choices that will get the character in trouble (like him trying to be "clever" and out-conning a con, or bluffing in a stupid way), yes please.

"Duuuuur, pretty shiny. Give pretty shiny, me likey" retarded dialogue, please by the love of all that is holy, no. For that, I have the Internet, thank you very much.

That's why I posted some examples above. Do they fit your expectations? I want your honest opinion.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Sounds good, it would add some color, and that's after all what sets dialogue tree dialogue apart. Also sounds like a lot of work, though.

 

[Jora]

Worth adding? Not anymore, at this state. I play dumb characters for humorous dialogue options and funny reactions of outrage and disbelief from other characters. Unfortunately their interaction with NPCs is mostly limited to comedy. The number of interesting quests available becomes drastically smaller and at some point it becomes tiresome to not be able have real conversations with people.

It would've added some extra flavor to be able to play a dumb person but since this game is supposedly focused on text and complex quests, I don't think implementing stupidity is worth the delay it takes to add and test the feature.

 

[SlavemasterT]

I'd be leery of spending too much time putting in dialogue tree branches for retarded characters - how many people will really benefit from it? Personally, I've only got so much time and interest to play through a game, and since going the dumb route usually makes you miss out on quests/facets of the story/other content I pretty much never play that kind of character, even on replays. If you could make that kind of path more interesting and meaningful then it might be more viable, but usually trying to RP a barbarian who's as dumb a rock is a boring, frustrating chore, and unless you think a lot of people are going to be interested in giving that a shot your time might be better spent on other things.

 

[Pink Elephant Floppy Ears]

If you include those you should also include low and high charisma (or speech) choices. If you have low charisma you are more likely to be rude or say things too bluntly. You could be very intelligent but have no social skills. Getting the best outcome should be a balance of several factors and a character average or worse in one attribute should have a chance of succeeding in another way.

Using a single cutoff point (like intelligence 6) is a bad idea because once players know many of them will take the minimum value to get the speech benefits and spend the character points elsewhere. Like rounded down attribute bonuses (AD&D, SPECIAL) it penalizes first time players.

 

[Claw]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure if it's worth the time. Of course, if you find yourself waiting on other people finishing their work on the game, go ahead.

One thing though: Your examples states "Int>6" and "low Int" respectively. Does that mean that with an Int of 6 I'll no longer by able to form proper sentences?
Do you mean to create a complete set for dumb dialogue replacing the normal dialogue, or just add some dumb and intelligent dialogue options?

 

[One Wolf]

intelligence less than 6 is considered "stupid" in AoD? 6/10?

 

[Joff1981]

IIRC the minimum number you can have in each statistic is 4, anything less in a stat meaning you'd be too stupid, weak, clumsy to survive.

 

[Elwro]

I like the options you posted, VD. It'd be fun to play as a low-int char, I guess. I think, though, that when playing such a character, the player will miss many details of the setting. That's why I certainly won't be doing this on my first playthrough. But on the second one... perhaps. Although if the difference will just be that a few options are missing and other are worded differently, there's no point in spending your time on this imo. If the low-int people would get some options more intelligent characters would not, than hell yes. Even so, it might not be worth the effort to develop a whole set of dialogues for low-int chars. I could live with a mish-mash of high-int and low-int options.

Well, at least I think. It might look ridiculous sometimes.

 

[Vault Dweller]

intelligence less than 6 is considered "stupid" in AoD? 6/10?

Would you consider a character with Str 6/10 strong? Joff's response is correct, btw.

I like the options you posted, VD. It'd be fun to play as a low-int char, I guess. I think, though, that when playing such a character, the player will miss many details of the setting.

That's my concern as well.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well you *could* introduce a "luck of the dumb" element, making certain elements of lore, information or even certain quests exclusive to dumb players. E.g. some NPC might be less careful with some info with a dumb player, considering him harmless, or dumb actions may lead to trouble, bit also divulge new paths or locations. That would be very cool, but I have doubts you have the time to put that much work in.

 

[John Yossarian]

Unless there is some faction(s) that doesn't wanna deal with high int. types, I don't think it's worth it (if there is, I hope they know your int by looking at your ingame actions, not by opening your brain and looking at your stat sheet). You can't just make low-int as viable as high-int, and that's gonna limit how intersting that type of character can be. I'm thinking it would be like trying to make Mount&Blade interesting for a char. that will always have crappy combat skills.

 

[Blahblah Talks]

I think having different dialogue options that are functionally the same gives very limitted benefit. As someone said, it mostly becomes comic relief (which can be good). I'm not sure it's worth spending a lot of time on.

OTOH, if the different dialogue options have different in-game effects (e.g. blunt/stupid speak offends an NPC lowering his disposition; fancy talk pisses off low-class peasant) or lead to different outcomes that open new quests or quest branches/solutions (e.g. dumb character is swindled out of important item, which he/she must then recover to complete quest) then I think it's a good thing and worth the effort.

I also think that it's ok to have some things that are possible to some (but not all) characters, as long as each type has them. It helps with the replayability.

 

[Fryjar]

*double post*

 

[Fryjar]

Well, in general more choices and diversity are always a positive element but considering that your time is limited, I'd rather not implement them.
After all this game is text driven, and thus most players will tend to raise their intelligence at least to a satisfying level or else will miss out on many interesting choices.
Thus, I'd recommend you to rather invest your time in fleshing out special dialogue choices or npc reactions that people with at least average stats receive.
So think about adding more charisma modifiers for 7/8/9 points in this attribute, the same for similar skills, since in this case more people will encounter those interesting situations.
By focusing on this range (7,8,9,10) you will strenthen your motif of choices and consequences.
Instead of creating single value barriers for 90% of all relevant dialogue (8 intelligence in Fallouts case for all of the smart answers) people would really think hard about investing one more point rather in intelligence or in dexterity.
Therefore you'd once again raise the replay value tremendously.
On top of that, you wouldn't have to start by scratch like in the "dumb dialogue"'s case. So, the required effort, to improve the gameplay experience will be much lower in this case, since you are just building up on an already viable gameplay element (other than completely rewriting everything).

 

[Greatatlantic]

I have never, (never, ever) never played a "dumb" character. I think I started one in Arcanum, got bored with it (which isn't to uncommon for my repeat playthrough characters), then abadoned it before I crossed the first bridge.

If you are actually planning to rewrite all dialogue to provide "dumb" options, forget about it. Its just to much work for whats going to be a curiousity for the vast majority of players (go ahead and correct me on this if you think I'm wrong). IQ checks, on the other hand, I'm all for. Maybe include advance dialogue that only appears for high IQ players, or the occassionally really stupid saying (They sell Walls at Wal-mart?) for low IQ players.

 

[Jora]

The more I think about it, the more I begin to believe that making a lack certain qualities a viable gameplay style with extra quests and opportunities as rewards is just not the way to go. It doesn't make sense. Why should a retard be able to go on any kind of organised journey and hope to achieve anything? Why would anyone trust him with a quest?

There are so many other areas that could be developed. Coming up with new skills and new situations to use skills in, for instance. Why bother making it possible to play a type of character that doesn't fit the nature of the game and its storyline?

Just put the game together and implement all you ever wanted in your next project.

 

[Lumpy]

Sure; it's no fun when low intelligence simply means you get less stuff to do. A dialogue-heavy game would likely discourage a player from playing a low-int character. If, on the other hand, playing that character opens new pathways while closing other - being manipulated to do stuff you wouldn't normally do - it can actually become fun.

 

[neuromantik]

Dumb options for low Int characters make sense.

So, yes.

 

[suibhne]

It might be helpful to stay away from describing characters as "dumb"; given AoD's breakdown, "average" and "above-average" might be more useful.

If I understand you correctly, you're describing three tiers of Int for dialog purposes: 4-6, 7-9, and 10 (since there are special "perks" for maxing out any stat).

To me, it's self-evident that above-average characters should have additional options. Don't look at it as denying options to the merely-average characters. After all, there's a cost to building a character with above-average Int, just as there's some flexibility inherent in building a character with merely average Int. This is even more true in AoD specifically, since VD has mentioned that there's no way to raise attributes after character creation.

The only problem I have with this approach is that it can lead to gaming the stats. Int must be useful in enough other (non-dialog) ways for a player to reasonably choose 5 or 6, or 8 or 9, rather than deciding to stick to the tiers you've defined for dialog (4 or 7 or 10).

 

[almondblight]

If you have the time, I think your time would better be spent making the NPC's more reactive to your actions/how you look (the way that guy in the Hub would mention how infamous you were for taking down Killian/Gizmo or say what a bastard you were for screwing them both over). If you don't have unexpected extra time, I think a feature freeze would be better.

 

[Azael]

Better to include more reactions to your actions/reputations, etc. Since there are no "dumb" player characters, just average, it makes more sense to me to add options for the higher tiers rather than extra stuff for the Average Joe. Like others have said, it takes sacrifice to get to the higher tiers so that should be rewarded.

Besides, why stop at low intelligence. Characters with low strength should perhaps get bullied more often in conversations with burly NPC's, low charisma should lead to blunders, etc. You're still aiming for a 2011 release, right?