Nameless Voice on 21/10/2017 at 18:03
Conversation trees.
They're pretty much ubiquitous in RPGs.
You start a conversation with an NPC, and are given a set of options as to what you would like to say, which may or may not branch out into further trees of options.
They do a good job at allowing you question an NPC and get information about various topics, but they also lend themselves to a couple of problems when used to try to allow the player to have meaningful interactions with NPCs.
The main issue is that there isn't really much gameplay or expression of skill in conversation trees.
At worst, it becomes a matter of finding the right path through the tree, made even worse if the game doesn't tell you exactly what the options are and your character says something completely different from what you intended and there's no way to backpedal.
Conversation trees like that tend to be something of a no-information game - you are given choices, but don't have enough information to make informed choices as to what those decisions mean, so the only way to properly navigate the tree is to already know what each path does - a problem that just leads you to want to save before conversations and reload after you've mapped them out and are able to make informed choices.
Trees can be used better when the options aren't so much finding the right path with a clear success and failure case, but instead let you choose between two different but equally-viable options with different outcomes
The conversation trees can also be fleshed out with extra options that only available based on things you've done or skills that you've picked, which can make the conversations a little more interesting and feel more relevant to your playstyle, though that can still have an element of needing to know what to expect in the conversation before starting it, even though you can't. Maybe a larger part of that is that a lot of game conversations have limited and often nonsensical options that don't allow you to approach the situation in the way that you'd like.
Anyway, the point of my musing is to wonder: is there a way that this could be improved? A better way that conversations and social interactions with NPCs could be done, to make it feel more like a meaningful part of gameplay rather than selecting from lists and hoping lucky?
ZylonBane on 21/10/2017 at 19:38
One of the fundamental problems with conversation-as-gameplay is that it lacks granularity. There simply aren't enough decision points in a typical NPC conversation to measure up to even a game of Tic-Tac-Toe. Then there's the aforementioned lack of information about the consequences of your actions (which is, granted, realistic... but reality isn't always fun). This rolls into a general lack of information about overall state. In most games, even minigames, you generally have multiple variables to consider. But in a conversation game you usually only have a single variable to manage-- the NPC's willingness to do what you want. So all told, you end up with an abstraction of conversation serving as an abstraction of gameplay.
It may be best to simply not try to attempt conversational gameplay, and just let conversation serve as an information dispensing and decision-making mechanism.
redface on 21/10/2017 at 19:41
This is a really interesting topic, and it's closely related to a project I'm working on, so thanks for bringing it up!
I think for many RPGs it's mostly about roleplaying the character, more for flavour than real choice.
Many games punish you for taking the "bad" choice. But some, like the new Divinity game, actually made me (almost) not reload after not-so-great outcomes. Because I know I can usually swing the situation in my favour and not everything is lost. So what might help is less dead ends and more "welp, you got your ass kicked, but got through it and here's a new interesting situation" kinds of choices.
Pyrian on 22/10/2017 at 02:58
People have been trying to crack this problem for decades. I feel like if there was a simple solution it would've been found by now.
For my own project, I'm weighing heavily on what NV and ZB suggested; in Glade Raid, conversations are basically automatic except for a single periodic choice between three options, and for the most part each answer leads to different results that aren't substantially better or worse. On average, one path leads to more XP, another to more money, and the third to more allies and help.
A lot of conversation trees are packed with filler. I'm not convinced that choice is wrong, even though I'm not doing it. I think it works well for pacing.
If a conversation tree has unabashedly better and worse results, then it's a puzzle, and it should be treated as such. Generally speaking it's hard to thread the needle between too easy and moon logic. Banner Saga, for example, is filled with moon logic puzzles that can easily get your best heroes killed. (Delegate nothing! Lol.) Shadowrun Hong Kong has a lovely puzzle conversation where you have to handle two different conversations with the same responses. It's great fun, but honestly, it's really easy. Of the two, I prefer the latter approach.
I think gameplay driven conversation is reasonably achievable in simulation-driven rather than story-driven environment. I.e., the AI's have lots of priorities that can be manipulated in word and deed to accomplish some end. Could appear in 4X games, for sure. Maybe already does, I'm not really up on the genre. You'd have to make it work there before you could make it work in single-player story-driven.
ZylonBane on 22/10/2017 at 03:53
Incidentally, here are some examples of what I consider almost-but-not-entirely-awful conversation trees. Multiple failure states, and little if any clues what the "right" answers are. Basically try to read the author's mind.
(
https://www.newgrounds.com/collection/thenegotiator)
icemann on 22/10/2017 at 04:32
Fallout's 1 - New Vegas (and most definitely NOT Fallout 4) and Shadowrun Returns did this great with conversation choices having a certain amount + additional choices based on character stats and perks. I loved this way.
Pyrian on 22/10/2017 at 05:35
I have decidedly mixed feelings about stat-gating. It has huge advantages in realism and in giving you credit for your choices. But it tends to lead to what amounts to moon logic, of a sort. When I'm playing the various Shadowrun Returns games, I'm constantly trying to guess exactly how much charisma I need for the next mission. If there's a gate at 5 charisma, then 6+ charisma is a significant waste of karma, while 4 charisma is useless. And then there's that early mission in Dragonfall where the best way through is being a rigger - you can't even bring one yet, you meet Blaze in the same mission. Who'd've predicted that the critical non-combat skill would be rigging, FFS? Just annoying.
In contrast, other Dragonfall missions allow different amounts of progress. Like the blood mage mission where the higher your charisma (or having the right etiquettes), the further into the facility you can get before the shooting starts (and with a few other random stats - including Body FFS - you can complete the mission without firing a shot). If the developer really puts in a lot of well-thought-out gates, you get a smoother advantage curve, which IMO makes the whole concept work much better.
TannisRoot on 22/10/2017 at 14:19
Quote Posted by redface
This is a really interesting topic, and it's closely related to a project I'm working on, so thanks for bringing it up!
I think for many RPGs it's mostly about roleplaying the character, more for flavour than real choice.
Many games punish you for taking the "bad" choice. But some, like the new Divinity game, actually made me (almost) not reload after not-so-great outcomes. Because I know I can usually swing the situation in my favour and not everything is lost. So what might help is less dead ends and more "welp, you got your ass kicked, but got through it and here's a new interesting situation" kinds of choices.
Without stakes I find conversations are pretty unexciting and pointless because all choices lead to the same outcome. If I'm playing an RPG where my choices might potentially make a quest unsolveable (or require a different solution) or might cause a merchant to up their prices 50%, etc. I'll actually pay attention.
Shadowcat on 23/10/2017 at 13:15
I can't help but recall here that System Shock's slaughter/mutation of virtually every human on Citadel Station was famously reported to be a reaction to the problem of conversation systems, and Looking Glass' dissatisfaction with their own approach in the Ultima Underworld games. Killing the NPCs and utilising a variety of one-way communications to provide information to the player side-stepped the issue entirely. I believe the expectation was that in time someone would figure out a good solution to conversations, but it's arguable whether anything dramatically better has emerged thus far.
icemann on 23/10/2017 at 17:19
It's often the limitations that result in some of the best games out there. Since it makes people work their hardest to create wonders within the limits that they can.
