This is something that I see a lot in Oblivion and Skyrim - that when the NPC asks you something, you can only say one thing and that's it.

Is it always inexcusable to only have one dialogue response or is it sometimes needed?

I think it is bad. It breaks my roleplay when the answer doesn't fit my character's behavior. Bethesda should up their dialogue by hiring better writers and giving them all the resources that have been wasted on famous actors.

I don't find it inexcusable so long as it's seldomly done and done at the right time. It gets boring when there is a dialogue between the PC and an NPC but the PC's part is a 7-word sentence, and the NPC gets 4 paragraphs. I like being able to go back and forth in a conversation rather than ask a question and get 4 paragraphs of info then have a selection of 4-5 questions every time. Instead, you break up those 4 paragraphs of info into a 2-way conversation. For example.

PC has options, you pick one.

The response is going to be long, so the NPC starts giving info....

NPC: a few sentences on the topic
PC: gives a response

NPC a few more sentences going deeper into the topic
PC: gives a reponse that is a question
NPC: answers the question and leads into something else
PC: is shocked and wants to know how to do it!
NPC: doesn't know how to do it, but can point you in the right direction
PC: has a selection of 3-4 more things that are optional, but probably would help to explore those options


this is just one example of how it can go, but is a much much better method than

NPC yammers on and on and on about something
PC has 6 questions they can ask that are all 4-5 word sentences about the small novel of information they just received.

To me, it just gives the better immersion that I'm actually having a conversation with someone. If the latter method is used, I might as well be reading a book while using the table of contents as a guide instead.

The point is there has to be a balance and overall I think Bethesda did a better than average job with it in Skyrim (and slightly better in Oblivion). Not great, could have been a lot better, but was adequate. The single-responses of above, those would change depending on the original option you picked based on your character. That is ideal. Sometimes though the bad part is that no matter what option you pick in the beginning is that the conversation ends up being the same no matter what. So yes, having one option to communicate is OK, so long as it follows the correct path which is determined by the original option out of a set of options.

Bethesda actually did a really really good job with this in Fallout 3. They were trumped though by Obsidian in New Vegas.

I agree that if the dialogue response is not generic and can be applied to any character, it doesn't seem fitting.

How about this?

NPC greets player.

PC can ask three possible questions. One question leads to another which advances the quest.

The same outcome comes out but the player gets different information. So the same outcome but different responses change the character's disposition towards the player.

I liked the "one dialogue response" in Oblivion's MQ as it seemed rather fitting to any character. Skyrim had a lot of responses which went against my character so I had to RP that e.g. my character is not behaving like a moron with that alchemist.

It all depends on the situation really. What you're describing is just another variation of what I described above. In either case, the beauty of it can be applied anywhere. Talking to various NPCs with the varying dialogue options can reveal optional quest objectives, information on how to do the quest differently (like is there another path I could take that would be better for sneaking rather than trying to sneak in front of them?)

As I said, it doesn't always need to be multiple options. Having a better conversation flow I think is more important that consistent multiple options because you could easily get the lazy writing style where you get multiple options once or twice with an NPC and you'll get huge aomunts of information back from that single option you choose alone, rather than going back and forth and acting out a conversation. And that's the point of breaking up the NPC dialogue with single-option responses, to give immersion. There could be more options added in later on, maybe after a couple single-response options further breaking down the conversation tree. The single-response options is merely there to breakup the boring dialogue NPC yammering on and on with that one-sided conversation.

Say you get 4 options in the beginning. You choose one and you go back and forth with the NPC which includes a bunch of single-option responses. Those single-option responses would simply differ depending on the conversational path your PC went down with their original response. Different converstions lead to different options for the same quest, whether your starting it or whether you're in the middle. It doesn't matter. The goal is to actually have a LIVING communication between another character, rather than a 97% one-sided conversation.

The more in-depth the conversation, the greater the illusion of choice in these games.