Thoughts on persuasion/axii sign during dialogue?

[HellKnightX88]

I'd rather have it as a skill in the sign tree that you can invest in early on in the tree (since I don't want it to be locked out for my sword builds) and non-percentage based: if a dialog requires you to have level 2 persuasion then it should always work for values of 2 and above of said skill.

My characters usually have high speech/mental influence skills in RPGs because I like having that extra dialog/quest branch at my disposal.

 

[ilayoeli]

It could be sweet if Geralt could have avoided the last boss fight using he's persuasion/Axii skill....

 

[HellKnightX88]

I assume you mean TW1. Even there you can still avoid part of it.

 

[BRANCHINGSTORIESFTW]

In my opinion , a skill called persuasion or intimidation that you can level up is not necessary.The best coercion system is when intimidation, persuasion and the axii sign are used when it's appropriate.

For example, when you try to convince a lowly peasant to do something , the axii sign or intimidation should work,persuasion not so much since it requires brainwork from the peasant, while the other two are more immediate,one being magic the other being threatening.On the other hand when you try to convince a powerful wizard the axii sign should be useless,while reasoning or intimidation could work.

So you have to choose the method of coercion based on what you know about the character you want to persuade.
The witcher 2 did it well. No point in changing anything.

If they decided to make a skill tree about coercion,they should never forget the above.In some games all you need to do is level up the persuasion skill and every persuasion attempt is successful . I would prefer they didn't add any persuasion skill tree so as to avoid this pitfall.

 

[Gocko]

I agree, that's what I loved about the persuasion system Deus Ex: Human Revolution had. That system made you have to think and you actually felt really engaged in the conversations/arguments, making it so much more immersive. For those that haven't seen it here's a video example.

I would love if The Witcher 3 had a similar system, because the "Press this dialogue to maybe persuade this guy" is really dull and not something I want for such a quality game, except for smaller things that don't really need an entire argument built around it, then I could see it being there.

 

[RedFire01]

I loved the Deus Ex system, don't know how i forgot about it. It would require a lot of work to do it and if they did do it, it would probably only be on main quests. A more simple version would be better where if you try to persuade/intimidate, you have a choice of 3 options and only one works. And Axii could be the option that's chance based and the chance increases when you put talent points into it, and even when you max it out it has a decent chance of failing and is guaranteed to not work on some people. So you can always persuade and intimidate without skill points or chance of failing, it just requires you to select the right option, while Axii is an alternative with a hefty chance of failing that is better the more you put talent points into the sign. So it's a choice between choosing one of six options or just trying to use Axii.

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

In my opinion , a skill called persuasion or intimidation that you can level up is not necessary.The best coercion system is when intimidation, persuasion and the axii sign are used when it's appropriate.

For example, when you try to convince a lowly peasant to do something , the axii sign or intimidation should work,persuasion not so much since it requires brainwork from the peasant, while the other two are more immediate,one being magic the other being threatening.On the other hand when you try to convince a powerful wizard the axii sign should be useless,while reasoning or intimidation could work.

So you have to choose the method of coercion based on what you know about the character you want to persuade.
The witcher 2 did it well. No point in changing anything.

If they decided to make a skill tree about coercion,they should never forget the above.In some games all you need to do is level up the persuasion skill and every persuasion attempt is successful . I would prefer they didn't add any persuasion skill tree so as to avoid this pitfall.

I like the kind of thing you're describing here, where you have to choose what's appropriate based on the situation. From what i understand, the Witcher 2 didn't do that (Except axii didn't work some times). The thing is, a persuasion/intimidation system isn't necessary for what you were describing. You can still do all that with normal dialogue options. The advantage of this would be that you aren't restricted to the to same options every time and it would be less obvious which the correct option is.

An example would be:
Option A: A practical argument eg. this is what's in it for you
Option B: An emotional argument eg. But think of the children!
Option C: An aggressive approach eg. do it are else.

Anyone can tell what the tone of a response will be as long as it's made clear. We don't need the game to tell that for us (*cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough*).

As for Axii I'd prefer if it was kept for animals and less intelligent races such as trolls.

 

[OliverDK]

I like the kind of thing you're describing here, where you have to choose what's appropriate based on the situation. From what i understand, the Witcher 2 didn't do that (Except axii didn't work some times). The thing is, a persuasion/intimidation system isn't necessary for what you were describing. You can still do all that with normal dialogue options. The advantage of this would be that you aren't restricted to the to same options every time and it would be less obvious which the correct option is.

An example would be:
Option A: A practical argument eg. this is what's in it for you
Option B: An emotional argument eg. But think of the children!
Option C: An aggressive approach eg. do it are else.

Anyone can tell what the tone of a response will be as long as it's made clear. We don't need the game to tell that for us (*cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough*).

As for Axii I'd prefer if it was kept for animals and less intelligent races such as trolls.

It's the kind of system I have argued would be better than the way it was in TW2 because it would a least involve some kind of thinking and involvement of the player. However I still don't like it as the system is flawed by it's very core and will only leave the vast majority of players saving and reloading or checking guides until satisfied with the outcome. It is not role-playing and it is defiantly not immersive.

I much prefer that you could play the kind of character that suites you - evil, neutral and good or as I prefer unsympathetic, neutral and involved. Then have the world react and shapes after your play-style. The NPCs either feel annoyed, fearful, appeasing or completely indifferent to you and doors close and shuts depending on that. Materials and different armors etc becomes available at shops or through quests. It would give much replay-value too if executed properly which too my knowledge so far it really hasn't in any game. Most games punish you for playing evil, but I don't get this approach with evil/good. I much prefer as mentioned a being unsympathetic and involved approach.

 

[BRANCHINGSTORIESFTW]

However I still don't like it as the system is flawed by it's very core and will only leave the vast majority of players saving and reloading or checking guides until satisfied with the outcome. It is not role-playing and it is defiantly not immersive.

It is roleplaying and it is immersive ,the fact that the majority of players will be reloading and reading guides because they can't deal with the outcome of their choice is irrelevant to roleplay and immersion. If they want immersion they should stand by their decisions.

 

[OliverDK]

It is roleplaying and it is immersive ,the fact that the majority of players will be reloading and reading guides because they can't deal with the outcome of their choice is irrelevant to roleplay and immersion. If they want immersion they should stand by their decisions.

Well we differ in our opinion in what role-playing is then. Role-playing for me is to play a character in depth based on the morals and opinions you apply to that character not on how to maximize every situation based on if being intimidating, persuasion and so on will get you what you want. Then you are stuck in a endless loop of a character that has no integrity or personality whatsoever. If you want that kind of game you should imo go for a detective game where getting the most information would benefit you, not a role-playing game.

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

It's the kind of system I have argued would be better than the way it was in TW2 because it would a least involve some kind of thinking and involvement of the player. However I still don't like it as the system is flawed by it's very core and will only leave the vast majority of players saving and reloading or checking guides until satisfied with the outcome. It is not role-playing and it is defiantly not immersive.

I much prefer that you could play the kind of character that suites you - evil, neutral and good or as I prefer unsympathetic, neutral and involved. Then have the world react and shapes after your play-style. The NPCs either feel annoyed, fearful, appeasing or completely indifferent to you and doors close and shuts depending on that. Materials and different armors etc becomes available at shops or through quests. It would give much replay-value too if executed properly which too my knowledge so far it really hasn't in any game. Most games punish you for playing evil, but I don't get this approach with evil/good. I much prefer as mentioned a being unsympathetic and involved approach.

I'm sorry, but, through no fault of your own, I don't really get what you're saying. Are you saying you disagree with me? Because the thing you describe sounds very similar to what i had in mind.

Anyway, of course the world should be shaped by the choices you make but what you need to remember is that in this game you play as a predetermined character. Each choice still has to make sense for Geralt, otherwise he would have no personalty. So many RPG's have boring husks as a protagonist meaning you have to come up with your own personalty for them. And i know some people like this and so do I just not in the Witcher. So the whole good neutral evil choice doesn't really apply here. Besides the best thing about the witcher games is possibly the difficult moral decisions, which would be a lot easier to make if the options were designed for a wide range of different kinds of characters.

Edit: ah, i think i know what you're getting at now.

Well, people do act differently depending on who their talking to. I wouldn't speak to my Nan like i do with my freinds, for example. Similarly Geralt may talk differently to a peasant than he would to a powerful Mage.

 

[BRANCHINGSTORIESFTW]

Well we differ in our opinion in what role-playing is then. Role-playing for me is to play a character in depth based on the morals and opinions you apply to that character not on how to maximize every situation based on if being intimidating, persuasion and so on will get you what you want. Then you are stuck in a endless loop of a character that has no integrity or personality whatsoever. If you want that kind of game you should imo go for a detective game where getting the most information would benefit you, not a role-playing game.

If you want your character to always be threatening and menacing or to always be reasonable you can still do it . You won't get the most out of every situation but you will be roleplaying. Personally, i like to roleplay my character as a detective isn't this roleplaying ?

 

[OliverDK]

I'm sorry, but, through no fault of your own, I don't really get what you're saying. Are you saying you disagree with me? Because the thing you describe sounds very similar to what i had in mind.

Anyway, of course the world should be shaped by the choices you make but what you need to remember is that in this game you play as a predetermined character. Each choice still has to make sense for Geralt, otherwise he would have no personalty. So many RPG's have boring husks as a protagonist meaning you have to come up with your own personalty for them. And i know some people like this and so do I just not in the Witcher. So the whole good neutral evil choice doesn't really apply here. Besides the best thing about the witcher games is possibly the difficult moral decisions, which would be a lot easier to make if the options were designed for a wide range of different kinds of characters.

I agree with that the sytem where you have to think is better than the randomness that imo was TW2 in regards to intimidation, AXII and so on. But I still find even that system flawed from a role-playing stand-point as it will leave players 'annoyed' and save/reload instead of role-playing because they would have to step out of character the whole time.

And the last part of my post was written far to fast and not explained very well but to do that it would be a looooooooong post and be thread 'stealing'. And I actually had written that it would be difficult to implement in TW universe but failed to copy/paste that last bit from WORD.

 

[OliverDK]

If you want your character to always be threatening and menacing or to always be reasonable you can still do it . You won't get the most out of every situation but you will be roleplaying. Personally, i like to roleplay my character as a detective isn't this roleplaying ?

Yes of course you can if that is the kind of character you like to play But in that way the game would only be beneficial to your play-style and not to people who role-play differently. And imo then we are not playing a RPG but a detective story.

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

Yes of course you can if that is the kind of character you like to play But in that way the game would only be beneficial to your play-style and not to people who role-play differently. And imo then we are not playing a RPG but a detective story.

It has to make sense though. If you want play Geralt as a fearless bad ass who bullies people to get what he wants, fair enough. But whilst intimidation might work on a lowly peasant it wouldn't work on a Bandit leader surrounded by 20 of his mates. If the 'Correct choice' makes sense to the situation i don't see the problem. The Witcher games have a sense of realism to them and in reality different types of people don't always get along. So you can still role play but you have to accept that some people might not like your character and you will miss out on stuff.

Also, i didn't have a problem with the way conversations worked when there wasn't an option for persuasion (it was mainly used during the side quests) so it wouldn't effect your ability to role play much, if at all.

 

[BRANCHINGSTORIESFTW]

Yes of course you can if that is the kind of character you like to play But in that way the game would only be beneficial to your play-style and not to people who role-play differently. And imo then we are not playing a RPG but a detective story.

Also persuasion mini games don't determine necessarily how you're roleplaying since your character's motivation is to gather intel and thus he calculates what is best to do in order to obtain it. It's not a spontaneous reaction that determines the behavior of your character but careful thinking on how to obtain info.

 

[Jimbob_2.1]

Also persuasion mini games don't determine necessarily how you're roleplaying since your character's motivation is to gather intel and thus he calculates what is best to do in order to obtain it. It's not a spontaneous reaction that determines the behavior of your character but careful thinking on how to obtain info.

Exactly! Although I don't like the term mini game, I was thinking it would blend seamlessly with the regular dialogue options.

 

[OliverDK]

Also persuasion mini games don't determine necessarily how you're roleplaying since your character's motivation is to gather intel and thus he calculates what is best to do in order to obtain it. It's not a spontaneous reaction that determines the behavior of your character but careful thinking on how to obtain info.

For me it sounds much like 'we' want the game like this because it fits the play-style 'we' like to play and too bad for gamers that takes a different approach. It's fine if it's a detective game because in that case you buy the game on that very premise that you as a player like to investigate and think carefully about everything to obtain information and the game rewards you for during so.

But this is still a RPG and imo in a RPG you play a character based on the morale and opinions you apply to that character and you stick to it. If you constantly have to evaluate your approach to obtain information or investigate then you are not role-playing unless you are in fact playing a detective kind of character. And a RPG shouldn't only reward players that play that kind of way.

That is not to say that it shouldn't make sense because yes absolutely there can and should be situations like you and J1mb0b mention where it would make sense to think and take a different approach - like a nice or funny way won't work with a bandit leader. But the game at it's core shouldn't be like that.

And as I mention in the beginning I think the intimidation, AXII, persuasive way where you have to think and investigate to figure out what way works best under the circumstances is better than TW2 approach where the more you did it one way the better you did that the further you got into the game. But it is still flawed imo in it's core because it is not true role-playing.

But I also realize this is a TW game and it is very difficult for the game developers to make a game where you can play Geralt any way you want as it would be much to far 'out of character' to how Geralt is.