Speech/Skill checks

[infestor]

i'm not sure what they're really called, for i only played fallout new vegas with this kind of nonsense but i think you know what i mean here's an example:





i'm strongly against them and they should be avoided in wasteland 2.

[shrubber]

Skill / stat checks are essential, but DON'T make them obvious like that. Don't mention the skill that the dialogue option is from, and certainly don't mention the chance of success. But other than that they add a great deal to the game.

[Arkki-Iljetys]

That could simply be an optional thing, whether you see the skill involved or not. I'd sure want to know when there's a good skill I can use, especially the way I tend to skim through dialogue quickly.

[SniperHF]

Skill / stat checks are essential, but DON'T make them obvious like that. Don't mention the skill that the dialogue option is from, and certainly don't mention the chance of success. But other than that they add a great deal to the game.

I think it's okay to mention the skill in the option it's from if you have already met the skill check. Gives you feedback on your build. But the key to that is I'm not a huge fan of % chances I'd rather it be levels. Level 3 skill beats level 3 lock not level 2 skill has a .4582309 chance of success on a level 3 lock. Pass/Fail not a dice roll.

If it is a percentage chance, then I agree don't mention the skill.

[Tanglebones]

I think it's good to include skill checks in dialogue. This makes skills more important in general, and, to me, anyway, it makes the dialogue seem like it's actually part of the role-playing game, as opposed to... I dunno, a choose your own adventure added on to the game.

And I think that you should also know which skill it is that you're checking... I mean, when my mother-in-law asks me how to get malware off her computer, I know what skills I'm drawing on when I answer her. Similarly, if someone were to ask me a question about the theory behind complex math... I'd know the skill I would need to have in order to answer the question correctly, but I also know that I couldn't answer it correctly.

I don't think you should know beforehand whether or not you'll succeed at your skill check (this is one of the few things that I really disliked about Fallout: New Vegas), mostly because if I know I'm going to fail, I don't try it, and instead go away until I level up enough to pass the check. It's really immersion breaking. "Hold up a minute, I think that I don't quite know enough to say the next thing I might want to say to you, so I'm gonna go away for a day or two, maybe a month... then, when I know more stuff, we'll come back and finish this conversation."

But I do think that the check should be a set number, not random. If I know enough about computers to bluff a guard into thinking I'm the expected tech, then I know enough about computers.

[Sobboth]

I think it's good to include skill checks in dialogue. This makes skills more important in general, and, to me, anyway, it makes the dialogue seem like it's actually part of the role-playing game, as opposed to... I dunno, a choose your own adventure added on to the game.

Yeah.
But problem : : with 4/6 characters how can we fail any skill check or stat/check ? Everyone will be a specialist. I mean with a single character you can't be good at everything (at least at the beginning) but with a team of 4/6 specialist ? Lots of balances issues if you want to do something challenging.

And I think that you should also know which skill it is that you're checking

I disagree here, it kills the sense of wonder/the mystery and replayibilty. It makes the game mechanic visible, no good at all for atmosphere. The dialogue line must appear only if you can pass the test. F:NV system kill all the fun for me.
You should guess what is the good answer is or discover new dialogues lines when you replay as in fallout 1/2. Especially that we know the mechanic exist. Otherwise it's auto-success and no brainer at all. Again in Fallout 1/2 it was very easy to guess what was the good line but you did not have the feeling to be hand hold.

[Azriel]

You could do it like vampire requiem, when a skill check/option happened based on one of your skills/abilities. It showed up in a different collar and font. When an intimidation option appeared it was in red and spiky font, When you tried to be diplomatic it showed up in calming green, when you had a sedution option, it was this sexy font in pink, when you had an option for a power that turned people crazy in a dialog, the text was written in crazy writing and black I think. It was kind of neat and wonder why others don't use it. I do want some sort of indicator that a new dialog/choice option happened because of a skill/ability/intelligence I had. That was common in old school rpg's.

[Tanglebones]

But problem : : with 4/6 characters how can we fail any skill check or stat/check ? Everyone will be a specialist. I mean with a single character you can't be good at everything (at least at the beginning) but with a team of 4/6 specialist ? Lots of balances issues if you want to do something challenging.

This is a problem, and I've been puzzling over it for a while, but I think your comment finally gave me a flash of insight as to how it could be addressed. What if the game was built around assuming that you could pass any skill check using some member of your party, like, if you actually failed a skill check, you had really badly mismanaged your party's skill selection. After all, the point of creating a team of specialists seems to me to be so that they can handle anything the Wastes throw at them. On first blush, this seems bad. Won't the game be too easy? But what if most of the skills had to be actively used in order to get their full utility?

For example, in dialogue, you start off with maybe one or two pretty generic responses... but you can use your skills while you're in the dialogue. So, before even choosing one of the responses, you could say, use "perception" on him and notice something about his clothing that might open up another dialogue option, or you could try to use "charisma" on him and see if that would open up more responses. If the character says something about, say, a rival organization that's been placing bombs as traps, you could use "bureaucracy" to talk about maybe infiltrating the organization, or "bomb disarm" to talk about how to deal with the bombs. Of course, this would have to be balanced by some mechanic to prevent just using every skill possible to "fish" for more dialogue options... but the idea is rather than presenting the player with a check that the player would fail or pass (which, as you pointed out makes more sense with one PC), the player would have to actively think about the best ways to apply all of his specialists' skills in a given situation.

You could also, using the same sort of idea, import knowledge that the player has gained outside the dialogue into the dialogue, like, for example, the sneaky specialist has snuck into this fellow's house and went through his drawers and found out some compromising information, then snuck back out to share that info... and then the player can confront the NPC with that data in dialogue.

Anyway, I'm just spitballing here... I have no idea if the idea that I outlined above would even be feasible to program.

[mismatch]

Shouldn't the skill check be made in a clandestine manner before actually showing the dialogue option?

That's how I like it anyways. If you pass the check: You get the option (With NO hint a check was involed).
If you miss out: You don't notice.

[udm]

Skill checks shouldn't be this obvious, I agree. But, NV did it mostly right in the sense that there were a few occasions when a failed skill check would have benefits. Sadly, most players don't know that. Take Arcade Gannon, for example: if you have intelligence that's too low, and fail your INT skill check while talking to him, he will take pity on you and join your party.

But yeah, I would much rather play without having the game tell me whether I pass the skill check or not. I can understand why Obsidian did this though, given they had to try and appeal to an audience that have 0 tolerance for losing.

-edit- Oh I misread OP's post. Skill checks should stay. They just shouldn't blatantly point out to you whether you've passed the test or not.

[alex]

You know, I think that in order to capture the spirit of Wasteland and to make dialog more challenging, it might be fun to not give skill uses as dialog options. Instead, to use a skill during conversation, you just choose and use it from a list. So rather than simply exploring the dialog tree, you actually have to pay attention to figure out when these skills might be useful.

[moomoos]

Skill checks are essential but they MUST be hidden, I repeat, skill checks have to be included but they MUST be hidden from the player. In some games you can even see stuff above your skill level. That's just terrible for so many reasons.

[Sobboth]

Shouldn't the skill check be made in a clandestine manner before actually showing the dialogue option?

That's how I like it anyways. If you pass the check: You get the option (With NO hint a check was involed).
If you miss out: You don't notice.

+1

You know, I think that in order to capture the spirit of Wasteland and to make dialog more challenging, it might be fun to not give skill uses as dialog options. Instead, to use a skill during conversation, you just choose and use it from a list. So rather than simply exploring the dialog tree, you actually have to pay attention to figure out when these skills might be useful.

It's more or less Tanglebones idea and it's a very good one but (always a but ) unless, as he said, you find a mechanic which prevent just using every skill possible to "fish" for more dialogue options, you will still succed every skill/stat check.

[Infinitron]

No skill checks?? What the hell is wrong with you man

[Oesophagus]

How else then will you utilize social skills? No skill checks in dialogue = no diplomacy. Which, in an rpg, is the worst idea ever

[Sobboth]

Infinitron, Oesophagus, that's only a part of the problem.
First do you want them to be hidden like in fallout 1/2 or not (F/NV) ?
Also maybe have you a constructive suggestion to avoid a team of 4/6 "specialists" characters to automatically succeed every skill/stat check finger in the nose ?

[alex]

@Sobboth

I most adventure games, you can use each verb with each noun around, but they are still challenging. It is also possible to make some of the skill uses end up in trouble. Trying to bribe a guard might end up in combat if he is honest. Heck, it might even need the right context. For example, before offering the bribe, you would need to sweet talk him about how hard a guard's life is and he sure doesn't make enough for all he puts on the line.

On the specialist thing, this is just a question of fine tunning how many skills there are and how many you can get good at. Having a party that covers all social skills should be sure to leave you holes in combat, exploration and/or skullduggery.

[Infinitron]

Also maybe have you a constructive suggestion to avoid a team of 4/6 "specialists" characters to automatically succeed every skill/stat check finger in the nose ?

Actually, I'm not sure what's wrong with rewarding players who have enough foresight to assemble a party with broad talents. And like Alex said, even that has its price.

[TwinkieGorilla]

[Intelligence] So you say Bethesda's sorry excuse for "speech checks" should warrant the exclusion of an otherwise essential RPG element?

[Gabriel77Dan]

I don't think that the checks should be visible but they should certainly be in the dialogue design along with dialogue skills.