A Dialogue Model

I posted this in another thread previously, where it was a out-of-nowhere type, discussion-breaking post, so I decided to dedicate a thread to it.

I've been writing a dialogue system which I'd like to call a "turn-based dialogue" (just as a gimmick). To give a rough outline, NPCs have varying, context-sensitive limits of time, or "turns" allocatable to dialogue at any given moment. These include current tasks and situations, like hostility, surprise, working hours, idle, well-being, eating etc., as well as special conditions for quests, with appropriate answers associated with these situations. So, there are base values for how long a NPC can take the time to talk and how many times you can bugger a NPC during one instance of such a situation. Then base values are affected by NPCs' own stats on the spot and constitute a final value for any given situation for the NPC in question.

Each dialogue option the PC can choose takes a certain amount of time, or "turns", and a dialogue option may dictate specific responses of specific lengths from NPCs. Each of these options also have base values of their own, which are affected by PC's stats and the outcome of both can affect the total time (that final value I mentioned above) a NPC can allocate to dialogue with PC, so the number of turns a dialogue can last is determined. This number can change on the fly during a dialogue. PC's stats coupled with good or bad dialogue options, may give fever or more turns for the dialogue to last, within the dynamic min. and max. limits I mentioned above. When your turns are over, NPC will start giving you appropriate responses associated with the situation should you insist on keep talking.

In addition to that, there are initial and optional "observation checks", and appropriate dialogue options associated with the results of these checks. An initial observation is an automatic roll whenever a NPC is lying, hiding something, is afraid of something or doing something shady during the dialogue (like, say, giving a signal secretly to someone somewhere you can't see, poisoning your drink as you speak or trying to extract information from you without alerting you). PC is either succesfull at noticing an anomaly or succesfull at identifying the anomaly itself or unsuccessfull at noticing anything. If PC is successfull at noticing or identifying an anomaly, relevant expression in NPC's dialogue lines becomes selectable (e.g. hyperlinked). You can make additional rolls for "optional observation" to try to identify the anomaly or confirm that something doesn't add up or just gain more information about an already identified anomaly, all by choosing the "observed" expression in the dialogue. Needles to say, only the relevant stats, depending on the situation, are taken into account for these rolls.

However, every one of these optional rolls go through the NPC. NPC may notice your efforts at leeching information from his or her actions, words or the immediate surroundings, and if (s)he does, that can alter the direction of the dialogue and the number of turns, both in a good or a bad way, as well the NPC's disposition. There are also situations when an option roll itself may take a turn as well. Alternatively, you can choose to ask the NPC about an observed anomaly directly, both before and after making optional rolls.

As for the presentation of observation; they either take place in the main dialogue box, next to the relevant dialogue text ( and in italic for example, with different colour coding), or a dedicated information box, like in Fallout. There may be hyperlinks to various bits of information within the observation text itself.

For example, you notice that the alchemist NPC does things as you speak. Through your stats, including sufficient level in an alchemy skill, you notice what he's doing, which may not be necessarily good or bad. As a result of your successfull initial observation, you notice that (read from information box) that he's adding X to Y while doing Z. X,Y and Z could be hyperlinked, so when you click on one, additional information (at no cost, since you've already made the observation based on your current information and experience) about it comes (preferrably in a new box). However note that you may not have observed to what end X,Y and Z are being used, mostly based on skill level. Now, if you believe your skill level should be sufficient, you could risk losing a turn at cost of an optional observation. Alternatively, you could give it a rest, and the next time you will read a book about alchemy, you will have recognised what that NPC was doing. System should keep track of observation checks of course, so it's not up to the player's memory or "player skill", but the emulation of character's memory.

Obviously, there should be a way to hint the player whether (s)he would have a chance of recognizing the observed situation after focusing, and I was thinking maybe colour coding on the observable expression. Also, with this specific example, there is also the problem of players remembering such processes and trying to find in-game workarounds. To overcome this problem, for this specific example (and many other similar ones), I've thought about making many variants of specific things, like formula here. Say, 15 different formulae for a posion so player isn't exactly encouraged to find out the answers from get-go. Another possible solution would be complete randomization of things, e.g. herbs, ingredients and formulae here, but that might break consistency and reasoning to a degree.

Remember again, this is but an example. I've come up with many different situations, from mundane to common, making use of many types of skills (diplomatic, social, military, roguish etc.) where this type of system would be suited to (and not the other way around, ie. coming up with situations specifically suited to this system), all with their own problems, and despite still having a long way to go, I know these can be overcome in meaningful ways, which is also why I'm describing the system here.

In addition to all of these, there are a number of ever-present dialogue options for changing the communication style (think Daggerfall; blunt, gentle) and other possible actions, all of these, everything tied to skills.

Without going into detail, it goes like that. Turn-based, or "tactical" dialogue. I've been wanting to write about it to get input, ideas and opinions from Codex for sometime, but have been hesitating. The part about dialogue in the OP in that other thread (about "immersion") fueled me for some reason. Sounds complicated perhaps, but it really is not. It has some flaws and issues, but nothing unsolvable I think. Hopefully, I'll go somewhere someday, making use of that.

Go for it.

Thoughts: could be cumbersome, so what if you automated it?

What if you tied it to some kind of setting appropriate skill to see if its worth while? For example, in dealing with a shady character, you'd have to pass a social skill to do anything.

So for example, off the top of my head:
1) When you speak to a shady character, say, Jabba the Hutt, Jabba rolls first to see if he see's you trying to notice anything shady.
2) Then you have to pass your criminal element / high society / mercantile / tribal etuiqette etc check. If you pass that test, then you get to peek at Jabba's observation result.
3a) If Jabba fails his observe test, then you automatically try to observe everything...here again, to see anything, you have to pass your own observation test, but at least it can be done in relative safety (for this turn). That sounds good to me because it's a nautral flow.

Negative results would require more thought....

3b)If Jabba passes his observation check, then maybe you get the options to observe like you describe?
4) But if you fail the initial etiquette check, no dice all the way around?

My thinking is a thief in a theives den is going to know how to look for the contact signaling the underlings w/the net, while a merlin type character is going to be clueless (perhaps). At the same time, the thief is also going to know when its safe to take a peak, and when its not.

bah, scratch that, I see you've expanded your post. Very nice, go for it, look for a way to smooth it out later!

Then your character has to pass his criminal element / high society / mercantile / tribal etuiqette etc check. If the passes that test, then the PC gets to peek at the target character's observation result. If the target failed its observe test, then the PC automatically tries to observe everything...here again, to see anything, the pc has to pass its own observation test, but at least it can be done in relative safety. That sounds good to me because it's a nautral flow.

Click to expand...

Social acceptance. Yeah, that sounds good actually. Nice thinking there, thanks. Better to tie it to reputation with factions, groups etc. though.

I also forgot to mention a part about hiding own your emotions, secrets against NPCs observation rolls against you, but I've planned that part to be that's almost always automatic, outside exceptions. I'm open to ideas on there as well.

By the way, it's not like I'm putting out a game in near foreseeable future (not sure what smiley would fit best here, but I generally don't like smileys anyway).

IMO the game must first build a good scenario and then implement a good system to make the scenario work.

In most CRPGs, this system wouldn't make much of an impact because most NPCs there hardly ever try to *use* you or fool you and when they do, it's necesary to tag along with it in order for the plot to progress (i.e. the Infinity games).

However in a CRPG where you have alot of hostlie NPCs, say... you're a spanish priest who needs to convert the newly conquered aztec population for the King of Spain and the Holy Mother Church, then situations where you have to think "tactical" in dialog are more often. There would be more NPCs that would try to poison you or lead you in a trap and loot your gear from your dead body. You can feel the hatred of the guy you're speaking to has he calls his family to come and beat you up, thus a succesfull dialog would literaly mean the difference between life and death (and since you're a priest, then this scenario would go well for a combat-lite CRPG).

I would also like to see more situations in which you are tortured or beaten the crap out to give away information. In that way the main goal, isn't to keep a secret, but to survive the misfortune. If you tell a group of greedy Conquistatores where an old aztec treasure vault is, they will just kill you because you're of no use for them, buy if you decide to take them there and later make a run for it when they aren't looking, or even take them in to an ambush site, where some of you're friends (if you make friends during the game) can kill the greedy spanions.

However during an interogation, the system should change. You're not asking the questions, you don't need to save time. This time *you* are asked questions and the one who's doing so has all the time he needs to pull out the info from you. You have to spill out as little info has you can, but still convince the torturer that you posses enough info to keep you alive. So while in normal conversations you have to save as many turns as possible, here you have to eliminate as many turns as possible through observations, letting of little bits of info and even trying to calm the torturer if he gets impacient (like observing that he is waring the tatto of a religious order, if you had read before of the order, you can use the knowledge to buy time by talking about their religious ways and maybe even convincing him that their teachings are wrong).

Once they get tired they might decide to kill you, but if you convince them that you're still valueble to them, then they might throw you in a cell where you can try and escape later, or you can cut a deal with their leader like the "Greedy Conquistatores" above.

Ah screw, I didn't put enough thought in this. But GREAT idea anyway!

I like your viewpoint. Honestly, I've thought about putting the player in such situations where you might need to play a "Pete Hines" game to dodge questions or keep information, but having those mechanics work against the player turned out to be a little difficult. I didn't take enough time working on it. I will..

Also thanks for the input. It's fucking annoying when no one bothers to say anything at all, even if all they have to say is "it sucks", "wow what a shitty idea" etc., I'd like to hear that it sucks if someone thinks so.

Sharing ideas about gameplay is the only reason why I ever joined the internet forums, which in this case was way back when ESF had the whole "Bethesda benefits from your ideas and imput on the development of TES4: Oblivion", even though my ideas where moronic to the bone, it still felt good to be talking about something that you don't in real life. But unfortunately it later turned into a "Making friends and be helpfull" aspiration, which makes you put more smileys in a post then text.

Good luck in researching this! I don't know why, but I enjoy reading about ideas more then seeing then implemented in a game. I guess it's like the text described scenes PS:T's dialog, the challenge of using your imagination is more rewarding then seeing a movie.

Also another good idea on dialog - http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... highlight=

Yeah, one of the threads I keep in my mind when working on such gameplay mechanics.